All you need is love - and Loving; the long road to equal rights

Mildred and Richard Loving made history by challenging anti-miscegenation laws.

I didn't want the month of June to pass without mentioning the June 12 anniversary of a court decision that is just as precedent setting and just as controversial at the time, as last week's Supreme Court ruling that allows marriage between members of the same gender.

In fact, Loving vs. the State of Virginia, which allowed members of different races to marry each other, was used as a precedent and foundation for the historic gay marriage decision, was the anniversary of the 1967 case. Prior to that ruling, anti-miscegenation laws existed in 38 states.

Most of the laws were directed against marriages between blacks and whites but in some states, such as California, the laws included Asians, or members of the Mongolian race. Filipinos argued that they were Malayan and thus the law didn't apply to them. A lower court agreed with that argument so the state legislature amended the law to include so that Malayans would be included. California didn't repeal their law until 1948 but the anti-miscegenation laws of other states were not affected until the Supreme Court ruled in the Loving case.

RELATED: Love overcomes racial divides

Even after 1967, many states kept the law in the books. Little by little, state by state, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were tossed. it wasn't until 2000 when the last state, Alabama, repealed its unenforceable   anti-miscegination law.

In this age when intermarriage between the races is becoming more and more common, its difficult to imagine that only 46 years ago, it was still illegal for members of different races to marry each other. 

This couple understood the connection between interracial marriages and rights of  gay and lesbian couples.

Virginia residents Mildred and Richard Loving married in Washington DC in 1958 because  their home state of Virginia had outlawed interracial marriages. They returned to their home in Virginia where police learned that they were living together, thus living in "unlawful cohabitation," also against the law. Police raided the Loving house at night hoping to find the couple having sex, which would have broken another racist law of the state.

The couple was asleep when the police arrived. Mildred Loving pointed to the marriage license on their wall but that didn't stop the police from arresting them. The marriage license from the nation's capitol was not recognized in Virginia. They were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail. However, the judge told them he would suspend the sentence if the couple left the state of Virginia. The Lovings opted to move to Washington DC.

Inspired by the civil rights movement, in 1963 Mildred Loving wrote then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy for his help to overturn the Virginia law. Kennedy recommended that the  ACLU take her case. 

The merits of the Loving case based on equal rights formed the foundation of the argument against the laws that forbade marriage of gay and lesbian couples. As in the Loving case, proponents of the laws cited Biblical references for their position.

In June 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving, Mildred Loving issued a statement that said:

"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."

Indeed, minorities understood the argument for equal rights. Their histories are full of battles fighting for those same rights. The decision was applied to key rulings regarding rights regarding abortion in Roe v. Wade that the present SCOTUS majority appears to be setting the stage to overturn; and gay marriages in Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the latter case, the black community, especially the African American clergy, who many have assumed to be against homosexual unions, understood the concept of equality. Thus, in a matter of a few years, popular opposition to the concept eroded.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to Loving in his argument for the majority:

"A first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause." 

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news and views from an AANHPI perspective, follow @DioknoEd on Twitter.

###