Loving v. Virginia...and the Latest Marriage Hurdle

One of the lesser recognized hot topics of today is the issue of same sex marriage. California's Supreme Court approved of same sex marriage to have it revoke via a petition and proposition on the ballot in November 2008. In New Jersey, we have seen discussions and votes recently to add New Jersey to the list of states that allow same sex marriages under a state's constitution. Currently, only Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa as well as the District of Columbia make it constitutionally feasible for two men or two women to get married. Several thousand same sex couples in other states patiently wait for their state to join the others. Or in some cases; they move to one of the states that allow it.

Same sex marriage has quickly risen to one of the most controversial civil rights issues. Both Democrats and Republicans try to tip toe around the subject. Democrats, based on history, have been more inclined to favor civil rights issues, but still some fear political backlash from opponents of approving same sex marriage locally or federally.

One of the biggest points missed in the debate is what goes along with marriage for these same sex couples. Yes, two men or two women would like the opportunity to go through a wedding ceremony with a priest like any man and woman would. But, the difference between civil unions and marriages is the benefits that go along with marriage. Being in a civil union does not give spouses the same rights and privileges and sense of security that many married couples enjoy.

However, it was not that long ago that a man and woman or different races were not allowed to marry. During the the 1960s, we saw the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965; but many have forgotten about the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967.

Loving v. Virginia was a major civil rights case that was decided in the Supreme Court by a 9-0 vote. It declared Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 unconstitutional. The decision overturned Pace v. Alabama's 1883 decision on interracial couples and marriage.

The plaintiffs involved were Richard Perry Loving, a white man, and Mildred Delores Jeter Loving, an African/Native American woman. They were residents of Virginia, who were married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia. They went to D.C. because of the Racial Integrity Act. They soon were caught and charged with violating the ban on interracial marriage. Police busted them, as intended, and they were put on trial, where they were given a year sentence in jail on January 6, 1959 after pleading guilty to the charges read to them. Leon Bazile, the judge in the case, gave a speech that involved the way that God separated races throughout the continents for the reason of not having races mix. As part of their sentence, they were told to move to the District of Columbia to lessen their punishment.

After moving, the American Civil Liberties Union on November 6, 1963 filed a motion regarding the judgment as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As with many cases that reach the Supreme Court, several lawsuits took place as the case worked its way to through the courts. On January 22, 1965, the Lovings' case reached the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Not too surprisingly, the court ruled against the Lovings and referenced the Pace v. Alabama decision among their references. The Presbyterian Church in 1966 came out in support of interracial marriages and later that year, the Unitarian Universalist Association came out against the ban as well. Possibly the biggest domino to fall was the Roman Catholic Church's support of interracial couples.

The United States Supreme Court would go on to overturn the convictions in a unanimous decision. They ruled that Virginia's law forbidding white and black persons from marrying each other would be dismissed. The Court also ruled that the Virginia statute violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court did not completely dissolve this injustice in every state. Alabama in 2000 became the last state to finally repeal its law against mixed race marriages.

Now 43 years after the Loving v. Virginia, some might see the case as evidence that same sex marriage too can be accepted and legal across the United States. There are many parallels that can be made between the Virginia/Alabama/U.S. laws of that time and what we see in terms of the pros and cons for same sex marriage.

Time will tell what the future has in store for same sex marriage, but if the precedent set by Loving v. Virginia and its relation to interracial marriage has taught us anything; that time is all you might need. It may of took longer than they hoped, but the Lovings were given their justice and ability to live their lives in marital bliss. They would open the door for many more to follow in suit. As 1/10th of the U.S. has already recognized same sex marriage as legal; we will see other states begin to realize that they don't want to be the one who doesn't allow it. As someone from New Jersey, it wouldn't be too bad for a liberal leaning state to follow the other five. The same goes for California. In 2008, the voters in California help elect an African American President of the United States; then also voted against same sex marriage.

Our nation is a progressive one. Civil rights issues have been met with serious challenges, but at the end of the day we have seen victories for causes. We are just in the middle of one for same sex marriage. Just like the Lovings were at the heart of the fight for interracial marriage some 50 years ago.