When Bazile refused, Cohen and Hirschkop took the case to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which also upheld the original decision. After another appeal, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1967. In 1685, the French government issued a special black code limited to Louisiana, prohibiting the marriage of Catholics and non-Catholics in that colony.  However, interracial cohabitation and interracial sexual relations were never prohibited in Louisiana French (see Plaçage). The situation of the children (free or slave) followed the situation of the mother.  Under Spanish rule, interracial marriage with parental consent was possible before the age of 25 and without it if the partners were older. In 1806, three years after the United States took control of the state, interracial marriage was again banned.  There is obviously no legitimate primary objective that is independent of malicious racial discrimination and justifies this classification.
The fact that Virginia only bans interracial marriages with whites shows that racial classifications must be based on their own justification as measures to maintain white supremacy. [Footnote 11] We consistently rejected After initiating this litigation, Maryland lifted its prohibitions on interracial marriage, Md.Laws 1967, c. 6, and left Virginia and 15 other states with laws prohibiting interracial marriages: Alabama, Ala.Const., Art. 4, § 102, Ala.Code, Tit. 14, § 360 (1958); Arkansas, Ark.Stat.Ann § 55-104 (1947); Delaware, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 13, § 101 (1953); Florida, Fla.Const., art. 16, § 24, Fla.Stat. § 741.11 (1965); Georgia, Ga.Code Ann. § 53-106 (1961); Kentucky, Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 402.020 (column 1966); Louisiana, La.Rev.Stat. § 14:79 (1950); Mississippi, Miss.Const., Art. 14, § 263, Miss.Code Ann.
§ 459 (1956); Missouri, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 451.020 (column 1966); North Carolina, N.C.Const., Art. XIV, § 8, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-181 (1953); Oklahoma, Okla.Stat., Tit. 43, § 12 (Supp. 1965); South Carolina, S.C.Const., art. 3, § 33, S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7 (1962); Tennessee, Tenn.Const., art. 11, § 14, Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-402 (1955); Texas, Tex.Pen.Code, art.
492 (1952); West Virginia, W.Va.Code Ann. § 4697 (1961). No brutality, no shame, no humiliation in all the years of slavery in the South, possessed such wicked character and qualities as cruel as the determination of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts and other states that allow the marriage of black Jack Johnson to a woman of Caucasian origin. (Applause) Sir, I propose this resolution. so that the States of the Union have the opportunity to ratify them. Mixed marriages between whites and blacks are repugnant and opposed to any sense of the pure American spirit. This is despicable and disgusting for the principles of the Saxon government. It is subversive for social peace. It is destructive to moral supremacy, and ultimately this enslavement of white women to the pet peeves will bring this nation a conflict more deadly than ever, blushing the soil of Virginia or decorating the mountain trails of Pennsylvania. Now, let us uproot and eradicate this humiliating, ultra-demoralizing, anti-American and inhuman leprosy.
 In the 1950s, more than half of the states in the Union – including all southern states – still had laws restricting marriage through racial classifications. In Virginia, interracial marriage was illegal under the Protection of Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Those who violated the law risked between one and five years in a state prison. Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, which concerned distinctions not based on race, the Court merely asked whether there was a rational basis for discrimination and relied on the wisdom of State legislators. In this case, however, we are dealing with laws that contain racial classifications, and the fact of the same application does not immunize the law from the very heavy burden of justification that the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of the laws of race-based states. On July 11, 1958, just five weeks after their wedding, the Lovings were woken up in their bed around 2:00 a.m. and arrested by the local sheriff. Richard and Mildred were accused of violating Virginia`s anti-miscegenation law, which made interracial marriage a crime.
In 1958, the Lovings married in Washington, D.C., to circumvent Virginia`s Racial Integrity Act. Upon their return to Virginia, they were arrested in their room for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that the Lovings leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. In 1963, the Lovings, who had moved to Washington, D.C., decided to appeal this decision. In 1965, Virginia Court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard his original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing: Virginia is now one of 16 states that prohibit and punish marriages based on racial classifications. [Footnote 5] Sanctions for miscegenation emerged as an incident of slavery and have been common in Virginia since colonial times. [Footnote 6] The current legal system stems from the passage of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which was passed during the period of extreme nativism after the end of the First World War. Central features of this law and current Virginia law are the absolute prohibition that a «white person» marry another than another «white person» [footnote 7], a prohibition on issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the court first raised the question of whether Virginia`s Racial Integrity Act violates the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads as follows: «No State either. to deny any person within their jurisdiction the same protection of the law.
Virginia officials argued that the state`s anti-misce law did not violate the equality clause because it «equally weighed» whites and non-whites because the penalty for violating the law was the same regardless of the author`s race: for example, a white person who married a black person was subjected to the same penalties as a black person, who married a white person. The State supports its «equal application» theory in the Court`s decision in Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883). In that case, the court upheld a conviction under an Alabama law prohibiting adultery or fornication between a white person and a black person that imposed a higher sentence than a law prohibiting similar behavior by members of the same race. The court argued that the law could not be considered discriminatory against blacks because the penalty was the same for each participant in the crime. However, when we dismissed the reasons for this case in the 1964 Legislative Assembly, we stated, «Pace represents a limited view of the equality clause that has not stood up to scrutiny in subsequent decisions of this court.» McLaughlin vs.