Left to Right: Mildred Loving & Richard Loving, Virginia 1975

James Yates & William Smith



Love continues to WIN! Discrimination is discrimination. Period. State and Church should remain separate. Damn oppressive views.

Marriage Licenses Issued in Kentucky County, but Debates Continue

MOREHEAD, Ky. — Gay and lesbian couples waded through a throng of protesters and journalists Friday and emerged from the courthouse here as the first in Rowan County to be issued licenses for marriage between people of the same sex.

Less than an hour’s drive to the east, the county clerk, Kim Davis, who was ordered jailed on Thursday by a federal judge for defying a court order to issue the licenses, remained determined to stay locked up rather than relent, her lawyer and her husband said. They vowed to continue their efforts to reverse the court order and win her release, and they argued that the licenses being issued by deputies in Ms. Davis’s office were invalid.

By the day’s end, eight couples — six of them same-sex — had made their way through the charged crowds outside the courthouse and obtained marriage licenses from the clerk’s office. Ms. Davis had stopped issuing marriage licenses for anyone more than two months ago, after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that legalized gay marriage, saying that giving licenses to same-sex couples would violate her Christian beliefs.

The first couple to reach the clerk’s office, James Yates, 41, and William Smith, 33, picked their way through reporters and news cameras as a routine paperwork exercise turned into a national spectacle. Their voices barely audible, they stood before Brian Mason, a deputy clerk, answered a few routine questions and exchanged some papers. A cash register rang as they paid a $35.50 fee and collected their change, and Mr. Mason extended his hand and said, “Congratulations.”

Mr. Smith and Mr. Yates hugged tightly, and tears filled Mr. Smith’s eyes as he buried his face in his fiancé’s shoulder. They emerged to a roar of cheers and jeers from the protesters on the plaza outside. “I think it shows that equality is everywhere,” Mr. Smith said, adding that he felt elated. They could have gone to another county with a more compliant clerk, but “this is where we live,” he said. “This is where we pay taxes. This is our home.”

Ms. Davis in jail Thursday.Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex MarriageSEPT. 3, 2015
Outside Courthouse, Kim Davis Is Seen as a Villain and a HeroSEPT. 3, 2015
Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk of courts, shut her office door after denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple in Morehead, Ky., on Wednesday.Kentucky Clerk Who Said ‘No’ to Gay Couples Won’t Be Alone in CourtSEPT. 2, 2015
video Kentucky clerk jailed in gay marriage disputeSEPT. 4, 2015
Same-sex marriage supporters, left, and opponents, right, faced off Tuesday at the Rowan County Courthouse in Morehead, Ky.Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying CourtSEPT. 1, 2015
Kim Davis, an elected clerk, at work in Rowan County, Ky.Supreme Court Says Kentucky Clerk Must Let Gay Couples Marry AUG. 31, 2015
Another couple, April Miller and Karen Roberts, who were among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit seeking to force Ms. Davis to issue licenses, got one on their fourth attempt.

“We got it!” Ms. Miller said triumphantly, holding the paper over her head. “Now we can breathe.”

But the legal wrangling over both the status of Ms. Davis, an elected official, and the validity of the licenses went on. Deputies of Ms. Davis were issuing the marriage licenses without her signature. Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the conservative legal group representing Ms. Davis, insisted the licenses were void because they were issued under her authority but without her authorization.


Demonstrators supporting same-sex marriage after the clerk’s office issued licenses on Friday. Credit Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
“They are not worth the paper they’re written on,” he said.

Kentucky law says that a marriage license must contain “an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license,” which same-sex marriage advocates note is standard language, preprinted on the form. State law does not require a clerk’s signature on the license; to be valid, it must have “the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.”

The Rowan County attorney, Cecil Watkins, has said that licenses issued without Ms. Davis’s assent would be valid, but he could not be reached for comment Friday.


James Yates, right, and William Smith Jr., outside of the Rowan County Courthouse after receiving their marriage license from a deputy clerk in Morehead, Ky., on Friday. Credit Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
Ms. Davis’s husband, Joe, who was demonstrating outside the courthouse with a sign that read, “Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah,” said that his wife would remain in the Carter County Detention Center in Grayson “as long as it takes,” but that he was worried for her because she has asthma. When asked if he viewed her as a martyr, Mr. Davis said: “No, I view her as my wife. I love her. I’d do her time for her.”

After meeting with Ms. Davis in jail on Friday, her lawyers said they would file a writ of habeas corpus, possibly in state court, to have her released. They noted that she still had pending an appeal of the ruling by a Federal District Court judge, David L. Bunning, ordering her to resume issuing licenses. The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear her request for a stay of that order while the appeal made its way through the courts.

She could win her release by obeying that order, but Mr. Davis and the lawyers said she would not.

Continue reading the main story
Breaking News Alerts
Sign up to receive an email from The New York Times as soon as important news breaks around the world.

“Here’s two things I know: She’s not going to resign and she’s not going to violate her conscience,” Mr. Staver said at a news conference. “So, however long that lasts, in terms of the consequences, she is prepared to accept them.”

Mr. Staver said that as long as Ms. Davis was the county clerk and the wording of the licenses made it clear that they were issued under the authority of her office, her rights were being violated. He called on Gov. Steven L. Beshear to make an executive order to remove that wording, but the governor’s office has insisted that he has no power to do so.

Some politicians have said another possibility is to resolve the standoff by changing the state law governing how licenses are issued. Matt Bevin, the Republican candidate for governor, proposed a license form that couples could obtain online, without a county clerk’s involvement.


Demonstrators supporting Kim Davis, the clerk who was jailed, prayed outside the courthouse on Friday. Credit Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times
But the prospects for such changes were unclear. Mr. Beshear, a Democrat who is not running for re-election, has said he does not want to call a special legislative session, so the matter may not be addressed until next year.

In the meantime, Ms. Davis, a 49-year-old Democrat who was elected last year, has become a national symbol of religious opposition to gay marriage. Gay-rights advocates have expressed concern that jailing her makes her a more sympathetic figure to religious conservatives, and could prompt lawmakers in Kentucky and elsewhere to push for new laws carving out exemptions for public officials who oppose same-sex marriage.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Ms. Davis was among a small number of local officials around the country who refused to grant marriage licenses, including three of Kentucky’s 120 county clerks. She said that giving licenses to same-sex couples would violate her Apostolic Christian faith, and that any attempt to require her to issue them would infringe on her freedom of religion.

After local couples sued her, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Judge Bunning rejected her argument and ordered her to resume issuing licenses. Both the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court refused Ms. Davis’s requests to delay that order from taking effect while she appealed.

Judge Bunning summoned her to court on Thursday, and, in tearful testimony, she refused to change her position, and the judge ruled her in contempt. The plaintiffs asked that the contempt penalty be stiff fines, but the judge instead ordered Ms. Davis to jail, saying, “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.”

As the marriage licenses started to be issued on Friday, emotions ran high among the demonstrators. One group yelled “Love won” and shouted support for the couples who arrived, while the other called out Bible verses and “Free Kim.”

A supporter of Ms. Davis, Mike Reynolds, wore a vest with a patch for his service in Afghanistan with the Army and a Confederate flag, as well as a hat proclaiming love of Jesus. He said that, while gay people had won a battle, they would be banished to hell “if they don’t repent of their ways before the end.”

Ms. Miller, who got her marriage license Friday, said the fight for marriage was about civil rights, adding, “This is one small step for people all over the country who have differences.”

John Mura reported from Morehead, and Richard Pérez-Peña from New York. Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting from Washington, and Richard Fausset from Morehead.

Loving v. Virginia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loving v. Virginia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 10, 1967
Decided June 12, 1967
Full case name Richard Perry Loving, Mildred Jeter Loving v. Virginia
Citations 388 U.S. 1 (more)
87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082
Prior history Defendants convicted, Caroline County Circuit Court (January 6, 1959); motion to vacate judgment denied, Caroline County Circuit Court (January 22, 1959); affirmed in part, reversed and remanded, 147 S.E.2d 78 (Va. 1966)
Argument Oral argument
The Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924”, unconstitutional, as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Majority Warren, joined by unanimous
Concurrence Stewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Va. Code §§ 20-58, 20-59
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[X 1] [X 2] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States 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 state’s anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white” and people classified as “colored”. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States had been in place in certain states since before the United States declared independence. At the time that the decision was made, 16 states, all southern States, had such laws. [X 1]


Mildred and Richard Loving in 1967
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,[1][2][3] and Richard Perry Loving (October 29, 1933 – June 1975),[4] a white man.

The couple had three children: Donald, Peggy, and Sidney. Richard Loving died aged 41 in 1975, when a drunk driver struck his car in Caroline County, Virginia.[5] Mildred Loving lost her right eye in the same accident. She died of pneumonia on May 2, 2008, in Milford, Virginia, aged 68.[6]

Criminal proceedings
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 interracial marriage a crime. They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip,[7] 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. 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.

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.[8] Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).[7] 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. Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court’s 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.[9]

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.”[10]


U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:
No laws passed
1780 to 1887
1948 to 1967
After 1967
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 measure for the offense of engaging in interracial sex. The court did not need to affirm the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage that was also part of Alabama’s anti-miscegenation law, since the plaintiff, Mr. Pace, had chosen not to appeal that section of the law. After Pace v. Alabama, the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws banning marriage and sex between whites and non-whites remained unchallenged until the 1920s.

In Kirby v. Kirby (1921), Mr. Kirby asked the state of Arizona for an annulment of his marriage. He charged that his marriage was invalid because his wife was of “negro” descent, thus violating the state’s anti-miscegenation law. The Arizona Supreme Court judged Mrs. Kirby’s race by observing her physical characteristics and determined that she was of mixed race, therefore granting Mr. Kirby’s annulment.[11]

In the Monks case (Estate of Monks, 4. Civ. 2835, Records of California Court of Appeals, Fourth district), the Superior Court of San Diego County in 1939 decided to invalidate the marriage of Marie Antoinette and Allan Monks because she was deemed to have “one eighth negro blood”. The court case involved a legal challenge over the conflicting wills that had been left by the late Allan Monks; an old one in favor of a friend named Ida Lee, and a newer one in favor of his wife. Lee’s lawyers charged that the marriage of the Monkses, which had taken place in Arizona, was invalid under Arizona state law because Marie Antoinette was “a Negro” and Alan had been white. Despite conflicting testimony by various expert witnesses, the judge defined Mrs. Monks’ race by relying on the anatomical “expertise” of a surgeon. The judge ignored the arguments of an anthropologist and a biologist that it was impossible to tell a person’s race from physical characteristics.[12]

Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District. Monks’ lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed-race person from marrying anyone: “As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them. Likewise … as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian….” The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty. However, the court dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed-race spouses but a mixed-race and a white spouse: “Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute.”[13] Dismissing Monks’ appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue.

The turning point came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also known as Perez v. Lippold. In Perez, the Supreme Court of California recognized that bans on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings’ convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race—and providing identical penalties to white and black violators—could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the unanimous court held that:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.”

Implications of the decision[edit]
For interracial marriage[edit]
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. Local judges in Alabama continued to enforce that state’s anti-miscegenation statute until the Nixon administration obtained a ruling from a U.S. District Court in United States v. Brittain in 1970.[14][15] In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court’s decision, when 60% of voters endorsed a ballot initiative that removed anti-miscegenation language from the state constitution.[16]

After Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages continued to increase across the United States[17] and in the South. In Georgia, for instance, the number of interracial marriages increased from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970.[18] At the national level, 0.4% of marriages were interracial in 1960, and 2.0% in 1980.[19] In the 2010 census, 10% of opposite-sex married couples had partners of a different race,[20] 25 times more than in 1960.

For same-sex marriage[edit]
Loving v. Virginia was discussed in the context of the public debate about same-sex marriage in the United States.[21]

In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals—that state’s highest court—declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that “the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case.”[22] In the 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, overturning California’s Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples, Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that “the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual’s choice of marital partner regardless of gender”.[23] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[24][25]

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving, Mildred Loving issued a statement that said:[26][27]

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry… I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Up until 2014, five U.S. Courts of Appeals considered the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. In doing so they interpreted or used the Loving ruling differently:

The Fourth and Tenth Circuits used Loving along with other cases like Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a “fundamental right to marry” that a state can not restrict unless it meets the court’s “heightened scrutiny” standard. Using that standard, both courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage.[28][29]
Two other courts of appeals, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, struck down state bans on the basis of a different line of argument. Instead of “fundamental rights” analysis, they reviewed bans on same-sex marriage as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The former cited Loving to demonstrate that the Supreme Court did not accept tradition as a justification for limiting access to marriage.[30] The latter cited Loving as quoted in United States v. Windsor on the question of federalism: “state laws defining or regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons”.[31]
The only Court of Appeals to uphold state bans on same-sex marriage, the Sixth Circuit, said that when the Loving decision discussed marriage it was referring only to marriage between persons of the opposite sex.[32]
In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which decided the issue, the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.[33] The court’s decision in Obergefell cited Loving nearly a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an unenumerated right to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that the decisions holding racial segregation and bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education and Loving, respectively), were made about 13 years apart, much like the decision prohibiting bans on same-sex sexual activity (Lawrence v. Texas) and Obergefell.[34]

In popular culture[edit]
In the United States, June 12, the date of the decision, has become known as Loving Day, an annual unofficial celebration of interracial marriages. In 2014, Mildred Loving was honored as one of the Library of Virginia’s “Virginia Women in History”.[35]

The story of the Lovings became the basis of two films. Mr. & Mrs. Loving (1996) was written and directed by Richard Friedenberg and starred Lela Rochon, Timothy Hutton, and Ruby Dee.[36] According to Mildred Loving, “not much of it was very true. The only part of it right was I had three children.”[37][38] The second film, The Loving Story, premiered on HBO in February 2012[39][40] and won a Peabody Award that year.[41]

In music, the case has been the subject of Drew Brody’s 2007 folk-music Ballad of Mildred Loving (Loving in Virginia), and Nanci Griffith’s 2009 song “The Loving Kind”. Griffith wrote the song after reading Mildred Loving’s obituary in the New York Times, and received the ACLU’s Bill of Rights Award for it.

A 2015 novel by the French journalist Gilles Biassette, L’amour des Loving (“The Love of the Lovings”, ISBN 978-2917559598), recounts the life of the Lovings and their case.[42]