DOCSLIB.ORG

Loving V. Virginia - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 4/13/16, 12:17 PM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Loving V. Virginia - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 4/13/16, 12:17 PM Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4/13/16, 12:17 PM Loving v. Virginia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[X 1] [X 2] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the Supreme Court of the United States state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Argued April 10, 1967 Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between Decided June 12, 1967 people classified as "white" and people classified as Full case Richard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision name Virginia determined that this prohibition was Citations 388 U.S. 1 unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) (https://supreme.justia.com/us/388/1/case.html) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on (more) marriage in the United States. 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082 The decision was followed by an increase in Prior history Defendants convicted, Caroline County Circuit interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered Court (January 6, 1959); motion to vacate annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the judgment denied, Caroline County Circuit subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Court (January 22, 1959); affirmed in part, Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. reversed and remanded, 147 S.E.2d 78 (Va. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same- 1966) sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, Argument Oral argument including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960- Obergefell v. Hodges. 1969/1966/1966_395/argument/) Holding The Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Contents "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, as a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 1 Background Court membership Chief Justice 1.1 Plaintiffs Earl Warren 1.2 Criminal proceedings Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas 1.3 Appellate proceedings Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart 2 Precedents Byron White · Abe Fortas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Page 1 of 11 Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4/13/16, 12:17 PM Case opinions 3 Decision Majority Warren, joined by unanimous 4 Implications of the decision Concurrence Stewart 4.1 For interracial marriage Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Va. Code §§ 20-58, 20-59 4.2 For same-sex marriage 5 In popular culture 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links 8.1 Links with the text of the court's decision 8.2 Other external links Background Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States had been in place in certain states since colonial days. Marriage to a slave was never legal. In the Reconstruction Era in 1865 the Black Codes across the seven states of the lower South made intermarriage illegal. The new Republican legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws. After the Democrats returned to power, the restriction was reimposed. A major concern was how to draw the line between black and white in a society in which white men and black slave women had fathered numerous children. On the one hand, a person's reputation, as black or white, was usually decisive and practical matters. On the other hand, most laws used a "one drop of blood" criteria to the effect that one black ancestor legally put a person on in the Black category.[1] In 1967, 16 states, all southern States, had such laws. [X 1][X 2]:p. 6 Plaintiffs The plaintiffs in the case were Mildred Delores Loving, née Jeter (July 22, 1939 – May 2, 2008), a woman of African-American and Rappahannock Native American descent,[2][3][4] and Richard Perry Loving (October 29, 1933 – June 29, 1975),[5] a white man. Richard Loving died aged 41 in 1975, when a drunk driver struck his car in Caroline County, Virginia.[6] Mildred Loving lost her right eye in the same accident. She died of pneumonia on May 2, 2008, in Milford, Virginia, aged 68.[7] The couple had three children: Donald, Peggy, and Sidney. Criminal proceedings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Page 2 of 11 Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4/13/16, 12:17 PM At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958 the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made marriage between whites and non- whites a crime.[8] They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip,[9] local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967 That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them. The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, 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.[10] On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia. Appellate proceedings In 1964, frustrated by their inability to travel together to visit their families in Virginia and social isolation and financial difficulties in Washington, Mildred Loving wrote in protest to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.[11] Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).[9] The ACLU filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings in the Virginia trial court to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. On October 28, 1964, while waiting for a response from the court to their motion, they brought a class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On January 22, 1965, a three-judge district court panel decided to allow the Lovings to present their constitutional claims to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice Harry L. Carrico (later Chief Justice of the Court) wrote an opinion for the court upholding the constitutionality of the anti-miscegenation statutes and, after modifying the Lovings' sentence, affirmed their criminal convictions.[12] Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Page 3 of 11 Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 4/13/16, 12:17 PM decision in Naim v. Naim (1955) and argued that the Lovings' case was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama.[13] The Lovings, supported by the ACLU, appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. They did not attend the oral arguments in Washington, but their lawyer, Bernard S. Cohen, conveyed the message he had been given by Richard Loving to the court: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia."[14] Precedents Before Loving v. Virginia, there had been several cases on the subject of interracial sexual relations. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, affirmed on appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the criminalization of interracial sex was not a violation of the equal protection clause because whites and non-whites were punished in equal U.S States, by the date of repeal of measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. The court did not anti-miscegenation laws: need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage that No laws passed was also part of Alabama's anti-miscegenation law, since the plaintiff, 1780 to 1887 Mr. Pace, had chosen not to appeal that section of the law. After Pace v. Alabama, the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning 1948 to 1967 marriage and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged After 1967 until the 1920s. In Kirby v. Kirby (1921), Mr. Kirby asked the state of Arizona for an annulment of his marriage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marriage Equality – the Civil Rights Cause of Our Times
    1 Marriage Equality – The Civil Rights Cause of our Times Rosh Hashana Morning 5772 By Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana Senior Rabbi, Congregation Beth Israel, Portland, Oregon It was December 1863. The Civil War had been raging in the United States for over two and half years. In response to the election of President Lincoln, eleven southern states had declared their succession and formed the “Confederate States of America.” The Battle of Gettysburg, which held the highest number of casualties in that long brutal war had been fought six months earlier. The Confederate armies were defeated and the beginning of the end was in sight. Only one month before, President Lincoln gave his historic Gettysburg Address proclaiming that the "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." In New York City, shortly before Christmas during that dark December, an anonymous pamphlet began to be circulated. The 72-page pamphlet, available on newstands for 25 cents, was called The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro.1Advocating the intermarriage of whites and blacks to create a “mixed race” which would be “mentally, physically, and morally” superior to “pure or unmixed” race, the pamphlet went on to make clear that this position was a plank of Lincoln’s party and that the purpose of the Civil War was its “final fruit:” after the abolition of slavery, the ultimate blending through marriage of white and black. In the racially charged era of the Civil War, where openly racist standards were part of normal educated discourse, there could be no more inflammatory claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern History and Civil Rights in the News 18 June 2021
    H-South Southern History and Civil Rights in the News 18 June 2021 Blog Post published by Scout Johnson on Friday, June 18, 2021 18 June 2021 This Week’s History: This week, the nation celebrates Juneteenth, commemorating June 19th, 1865, the date that Union Gen. Gordon Granger came aground at Galveston, Texas and read General Orders No. 3: “The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.” In addition to formally announcing the freedom that had technically, though ineffectually, been granted two and a half years earlier with the Emancipation Proclamation, the order also required “absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves.” Although often considered the last to hear the news and to be freed, recent historians have shown that Texas slaves were well aware of both the Emancipation Proclamation, as well as Robert E Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, VA two months earlier and had already begun living their lives as freedmen and -women. African Americans in Texas and elsewhere have been celebrating the anniversary since 1866, though such celebrations have gone by different names such as Emancipation Day or Jubilee Day. Texas declared Juneteenth a state holiday in 1979, and since then 48 other states have followed suit, with South Dakota being the only one not to recognize the day at the state level. However, after an overwhelming majority in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate passed the bill, President Joseph R Biden signed legislation this week making Juneteenth National Independence Day a national holiday, effective immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Bibliography Primary Sources
    Annotated Bibliography Primary Sources Bledsoe, John T, photographer. Little Rock, 1959. Rally at state capitol. 20 Aug. 1959. Retrieved ​ ​ from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/2009632339/>. This is a picture of a rally that took place during the Civil Rights movement. This picture helped my project because it helped show what was going on during the Civil Rights movement, which the Lovings and their case were a part of. “Celebrate.” Celebrate | Loving Day, www.lovingday.org/celebrate.; “About Loving Day.” ​ ​ About Loving Day | Loving Day, www.lovingday.org/about. ​ This website gave a good picture of the volunteers for Loving Day. It will go on to the slider image part of the website on the “Lovings’ Legacy” page. This picture was taken after a CBS news report on Loving Day. This site is reliable because it came from the official Loving Day website. This source also gave a picture to put on the Lovings’ Legacy page on our website. The picture is of people celebrating Loving Day. This picture is important because it shows that no matter what color, people can still get along with each other. This source is reliable because it is from the Loving Day official website. Cohen, Bernard. Interview by Michele Norris. All Things Considered: The Loving Decision 40 ​ Years of Legal Interracial Unions: NPR, 11 June 2007. ​ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10889047 This is a news segment by NPR. I used part of an interview that was included in this news segment. This helped the project because it provided Bernard Cohen speaking about how the Lovings reacted to hearing that their case would likely go to the Supreme Court of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium Fifty Years of Loving V. Virginia and the Continued Pursuit of Racial Equality Foreword
    SYMPOSIUM FIFTY YEARS OF LOVING V. VIRGINIA AND THE CONTINUED PURSUIT OF RACIAL EQUALITY FOREWORD R.A. Lenhardt,* Tanya K. Hernández** & Kimani Paul-Emile*** INTRODUCTION It has been ten years since this journal last published a volume exploring Loving v. Virginia,1 the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision invalidating antimiscegenation laws on equal protection and due process grounds.2 In that time, the American public has been treated to a virtual smorgasbord of new opportunities to love Loving. First, in a way few could have imagined fifty years ago when seventeen states criminalized interracial marriages,3 that decision has provided the impetus for a “global network” of celebrations designed to praise interracial relationships and families and to combat discrimination.4 Families and couples now gather annually in communities * Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Center on Race, Law and Justice, Fordham University School of Law. ** Archibald R. Murray Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. *** Associate Professor Law, Fordham University School of Law. This conference would not have been possible without the assistance of a network of people. We are very grateful to Amanda Gottlieb, Julia MacAllister, Adam Minchew, Catherine Tremble, and others at the Fordham Law Review for their hard work in connection with this Symposium. We also extend special thanks to Tomas Barron for excellent research assistance and to Carrie Johnson, Shanelle Holley, and Rob Yasharian for their hard work in publicizing and handling the many details involved in making an event of this sort successful. Finally, we express our gratitude to Dean Matthew Diller for his support and, of course, extend thanks to the talented scholars who, by participating in the conversations facilitated by this conference, deepened our collective understanding of Loving v.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Board of County Commissioners for Multnomah County, Oregon
    BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON PROCLAMATION NO. 2020-039 Proclaiming June 12, 2020 as Loving Day in Multnomah County, Oregon. The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners Finds: a. In 1958, Mildred Jeter, an African American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, married in Washington, D.C. When the Lovings returned to their home in Virginia, they were arrested and sentenced to a year in jail for breaking the state’s anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage. The judge suspended the sentence in exchange for the Lovings’ agreement to leave Virginia for 25 years. b. The Lovings moved to Washington, D.C., where they were legally allowed to be married and live together but faced tremendous discrimination. They had difficulty renting property, experienced racist taunting, and struggled with social isolation away from their extended families in Virginia. Prompted by this and desperate for justice, Mildred Loving wrote a letter to then-U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. c. Mildred’s letter sparked a legal battle that would change the course of U.S. laws. Her letter was forwarded to the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, which then connected the Lovings with two lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, who chose to support and work on the case for free. After going through many levels of the justice system and having their appeal repeatedly denied, their case eventually appeared before the United States Supreme Court. d. On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously in the Lovings’ favor and overturned their convictions in the case of Loving v.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form (Va
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. VLR Listed: 12/12/2019 1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 2/25/2020 Historic name: Old Jail of Caroline County Other names/site number: DHR #171-0010 Name of related multiple property listing: N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: 119 N. Main Street City or town: Bowling Green State: VA County: Caroline Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth
    [Show full text]
  • Voices of Mixed Heritage: Crossing Borders, Bridging Generations
    VOICES OF MIXED HERITAGE: CROSSING BORDERS, BRIDGING GENERATIONS CURRICULUM INTRODUCTION AND CREDITS Introduction Entry point for Voices of Mixed Heritage: Crossing Voices of Mixed Heritage builds on Brooklyn students to begin Borders, Bridging Generations is an inter- Historical Society’s groundbreaking initiative, • Inquiry-based document analysis of disciplinary curriculum designed for grades Crossing Borders, Bridging Generations to examine identity primary sources 6–12. We invite students and educators to (CBBG). From 2011–2014, the CBBG • Making personal connections to historical/ engage with the topic of mixed heritage project created an oral history archive and heritage political themes and identity in the United States from the with a supporting public programming • Listening to understand, not to respond mid-19th century to the present. Students series. The project examined the history • “Step up, step back” and other ground will investigate the voices and representa- and experiences of mixed-heritage people rules for group dialogue tion of those who identify as mixed-heritage and families, cultural hybridity, race, ethnic- • Collaborative group work individuals through oral histories, archival ity, and identity in the historically diverse primary sources, popular culture references, borough of Brooklyn and, as a result, created population. But an increasingly interracial and contextualizing secondary sources. a space for dialogues around racial justice. society has not addressed the issue of This will allow them to unpack complex racial injustice. Recent police killings of political concepts such as race, racism, This curriculum offers an historical context men of color in Staten Island in New York, identity, equity, and self-determination. for discussions about mixed heritage in Ferguson, Missouri, and beyond have and identity, with an emphasis on mixed prompted a nationwide reckoning with Empower the next race and racial justice.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2018 Volume 13, Number 73
    12 July 2018 Volume 13, number 73 UNDERGROUND RAILROAD FREE PRESS® Independent reporting on today’s Underground Railroad community urrFreePress.com California, UK, France, and Australia Strengthen Laws Requiring Businesses to Report Suspected Slavery in Their Supply Chains California, the United Kingdom, and ate suppliers for trafficking, require France have all recently implemented suppliers to certify that materials In This Issue their own versions of the UK's Mod- used in products comply with the ern Slavery Act that calls on busi- laws on slavery and human traffick- A major loophole in US slavery re- nesses and companies to report on ing, and crack down on employees porting law exempts most companies slavery in their supply chains. and contractors failing to meet slav- from having to report slavery in their ery and trafficking standards. Viola- supply chains. 1 While slavery is widespread, en- tions are subject to prosecution by the forcement is being concentrated on California Attorney General. South and Southeast Asia where it is The nominating period for the three especially prevalent. However, the 2015 California anti- 2018 Free Press prizes remains open slavery law has a major shortcoming through August. California's anti-slavery requirements in that it applies only to businesses 1 are spelled out in the state's Califor- having annual worldwide gross re- nia Transparency in Supply Chains ceipts over $100,000,000, thus not ap- Act of 2015. Newly strengthened en- The new Harriet Tubman Byway is plying to a high majority of the state's winning prizes and open for business. forcement includes The Act requires businesses including many small California manufacturers and retail sweatshops where it is known that 1 sellers to train company employees California's slavery and human traf- and management who have direct re- ficking problem is concentrated.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2021 BRG Insider Newsletter
    June 2021 "Inclusion in Action" _____ BRG INSIDER The "What's What" in Diversity and Inclusion from June New Division of Diversity & Last Month's Inclusion YouTube Channel! The Office of Institutional Equity & Access’ Division of BRG Insider Recap Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) is excited to announce that we have launched our YouTube Channel, which will Welcome back! allow you to replay our recorded signature events and If you missed last month's programs that have occurred within the past year. edition of the BRG Insider, please click**here** to catch up on events, Please subscribe here and share with your holidays, and more with our network to stay updated on our division's Happy Pride Month! BRG's! events available for replay. UPCOMING EVENTS JUNE 19TH IS JUNETEENTH 6/9 6/24 API- BRG HISLAT- BRG Topic: Wellness Wednesday: Relationship Skills for Couples Topic: Hispanic Latino BRG Micro Time: 12PM - 1PM Community Meeting Time: 6PM - 7;30PM Juneteenth, also known as Freedom Day is a holiday to 6/17 7/7 recognize the emancipation of slaves in the United States. WOMENS- BRG AAE- BRG This holiday was first celebrated in Texas after the Civil War, where slaves were freed under the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. Topic: Women & Allies Book Club Topic: Book Club Meeting This year Juneteenth is observed on June 19, 2021 Discussion: We Should All Be Feminists Time: 12PM - 7:30PM Time: 6PM - 7:30PM Click here to learn more about Juneteenth. 6/22 WOMENS- BRG 7/14 API- BRG CELEBRATING PROFESSIONAL WINS Topic: Women & Allies Book Club Congratulations, Discussion: We Should All Be Topic: Wellness Wednesday: How to Jennifer King! Feminist Deal with Difficult People Time: 12PM - 1PM Time: 12PM - 1PM Jennifer King has been elected as the new President of The Dallas Summit, a women's leadership organization comprised of 100 active members and additional associate members.
    [Show full text]
  • 5-9-21 Sixth Sunday of Easter
    AnnaGram Easter - Magnum Opus Magnum Opus - the greatest achievement of an artist or composer. Saint Anna's may be likened to an orchestra. We have sections, each with its own voice and purpose. We, on our best days, work as a unified unit; we create the music of the divine presence and indwelling of our God. The conductor of an orchestra may encourage, may shape, and may tease out every section, even every individual instrument, the best that their sound can be. Likewise that is what a pastor is called to do. But, we must be clear, the conductor does not make the music the conductor only provides for order and encourages the greatness of each instrument. Within this metaphor we might also acknowledge soloists that stand among the instruments, for a moment, and offer us a lovely melody that enhances the entire work of the orchestra. Can you imagine or hear a soaring trumpet solo, perhaps a mysterious and lyrical violin piece, each placed in the midst of the greater work that is the symphony of spirit, hope, indeed divinity. The Magnum Opus of Saint Anna's is the wholeness of our community, this congregation, the influence and nature of what we are and what we have been and what still may become. Particular instrumentalists may come and go; they leave their imprint on the rest of the section but the section remains vibrant offering its voice to the greater community of musicians. Saint Anna's is unique, rich, and deep. Our music, our symphonies, can echo the earthy grandeur of Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring, we can recall the brooding works of Mussorgsky, we can play Sergeant Pepper, Cats, or even playfully offer When the Saints Go Marching In.
    [Show full text]
  • Proclamation in RECOGNITION of LOVING DAY – JUNE 12, 2021
    Proclamation IN RECOGNITION OF LOVING DAY – JUNE 12, 2021 WHEREAS, Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested in 1958 for violating Virginia’s felony law prohibiting interracial marriage; and WHEREAS, the Loving family was convicted of violating the law and given a suspended sentence provided they did not return to their home in the Commonwealth of Virginia as a couple for 25 years; and WHEREAS, the Loving family did not back down but took their case through many levels of the justice system where their appeal was denied every time. Eventually their case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, where their victory created a landmark civil rights victory; and WHEREAS, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion, writing that anti- miscegenation laws "deprive the Lovings of liberty" and that the "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness"; and WHEREAS, Loving v Virginia (1967) ended all laws prohibiting interracial marriage nationwide, paving the way for all consenting adults to marry the ones they love; and WHEREAS, an annual celebration known as Loving Day, begun by Ken Tanabe in 2004, is held on June 12 in communities throughout the nation to commemorate and celebrate the anniversary of the 1967 Supreme Court decision; and WHEREAS, our country, state, and region are moving forward in the 21st Century as a multiracial and multicultural society; and WHEREAS, the City of Albany joins other communities to find a common vision from our interwoven past to build am antiracist society for the benefit of our collective future.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H6187
    June 11, 2007 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6187 Today, Lake Lanier provides power When completed, the total cost of Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I production, flood control, water sup- construction, including land acquisi- urge passage of the resolution, and I ply, navigation, fish and wildlife man- tion, was almost $45 million. When the yield back the balance of my time. agement, and recreational activities to gates of the dam were closed in 1956, it The SPEAKER pro tempore. The members of the surrounding commu- took more than 3 years for the lake to question is on the motion offered by nities and businesses. This week in reach its normal elevation of 1,070 feet the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. June is a suitable time to recognize above sea level. ALTMIRE) that the House suspend the Lake Lanier’s contributions to the The lake is named for one of the Na- rules and agree to the resolution, H. area and accomplishments. As summer tion’s most famous poets, Sidney La- Res. 354. heat begins to spread across the Na- nier. Born in Georgia in 1842, Mr. La- The question was taken; and (two- tion, both water supply and cooling nier entered Oglethorpe College at 14 thirds being in the affirmative) the water recreational activities are on years of age, graduating at the top of rules were suspended and the resolu- many minds. his class in 1860. tion was agreed to. More than 60 percent of the popu- While serving on the blockade runner A motion to reconsider was laid on lation of the State of Georgia relies on ‘‘Lucy’’ during the Civil War, Mr.
    [Show full text]