The United States has come a long way for marriage equality, but less than 50 years ago, some states outlawed the marriages of interracial couples.
We are introduced to one such couple in Loving, the new film from writer-director Jeff Nichols. Our window into the world of Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) and his childhood sweetheart Mildred (Ruth Negga) opens as they navigate a new chapter in their lives: marriage and pregnancy. But what should be a happy time for them isn't, as interracial marriage is against the law in Virginia. (Richard is white, Mildred is black and Native American.)
The film is based on a true story: In 1958, the Lovings marry in Washington, D.C. They return to Virginia to build a house and start their family. Those plans are soon stifled when local authorities get word of their illegal arrangement; Richard and Mildred are jailed separately and charged with unlawful cohabitation. It is in this moment that their nine-year journey for justice begins.
Nichols’s film arrives at a time when many Americans are uncertain about what a Trump presidency will look like and what effect his policies will have on civil rights. Minority populations are being targeted by his policies and supporters alike, and race relations seem more strained than ever.
Though the film was probably not made knowing how the election would turn out, the Lovings’ story is being re-told at a time when we need to hear it. It reminds us that our progress wasn’t made that long ago, and offers key lessons we need to be empowered to combat the injustices of today and tomorrow.
Anti-miscegenation laws go as far back as the 1660s, predating the formation of the United States by more than a century. The laws are commonly thought of as prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites, but some also forbid marriage between non-whites and other non-whites. In 1935, for example, Maryland passed a law banning marriage between blacks and Filipinos. And while anti-miscegenation laws are often considered an injustice that was exclusive to southern states, the reality is that such laws existed in states along the West Coast and throughout the Great Plains.
Although the Lovings’ marriage was recognized by the District of Columbia, they faced an uphill battle in receiving that same recognition from their home state of Virginia.
When Richard tries to bail Mildred out of jail, the sheriff says he feels sorry for Richard — he doesn’t know any better because he’s from a place where people of different races intermix and socialize, something the sheriff finds abhorrent.
“That’s God’s law,” the sheriff says. “He made a sparrow a sparrow and a robin a robin. They’re different for a reason.” If the sheriff — someone with a major source of power — believed that, what chance did the Lovings stand?
When we look at implementing future policies — whether at the local, state, or federal level — we must remember that precedence does not warrant prejudice. Anti-miscegenation statutes, slavery, and the Holocaust are just a few examples of injustices that were carried out under the guise of the law. Legality does not determine what’s right or humane; what’s right and humane determines what’s right and humane.
The Lovings move to D.C., where Mildred has a hard time adjusting to city life and being away from her family.
Her frustration grows, until she sees the 1963 March on Washington unfold on TV. Her curiosity is piqued. A relative encourages Mildred to write to then-U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
“That’s what he’s up there for. All this talk of civil rights — you need to get you some civil rights.”
Although Mildred initially scoffs at the idea, she ultimately goes through with it. And thankfully so — the letter proves to be a critical turning point: Kennedy refers the couple to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which accepts the Lovings’ case against the state of Virginia for their right to be married.
Like Mildred, it’s tempting to fall into the trap of thinking that your voice is small and inconsequential. But public servants are there for a reason, and that reason is to work for us; they can’t do that if we don’t make our voices heard. Speak up and get involved, because you absolutely can affect change from the inside out.
Initially, ACLU lawyers Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop tried to have the case vacated and the original ruling reversed through Virginia Judge Leon Bazile, who presided over the case.
But Bazile wouldn’t budge, writing in defense of the original ruling: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents...The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals also upheld the original ruling, with Justice Harry Carrico arguing that the Lovings' case did not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation.
But that would not be the end of the road for the Lovings. They appealed the decision, and Loving v. Virginia moved onward to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“We may lose the small battles,” Mildred says. “But win the big war.”
On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the Lovings, striking down Virginia’s law and upending the ban on interracial marriages in the 15 other states where anti-miscegenation laws were still in effect.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion for the court, stating that marriage is a basic civil right.
The Lovings paved the way for generations of interracial couples to love freely and openly. Though marriage equality for people of all gender and sexual identities wouldn't come for another 50 years, the case of Loving v. Virginia was a step toward the rights everyone deserves. The film helps us to remember the strides we've taken and the battles that have already been fought. Richard and Mildred Loving may have been fighting for their right to stay married to each other, but they also helped change the course of history for other couples like them.
