It Is So Ordered, Not Yet Implemented
Political satirist and standup comedian Trevor Noah released a memoir last November titled Born a Crime, an autobiographical work documenting his upbringing in Apartheid-era South Africa. The title of the book is taken from two pieces of legislation enacted in South Africa in the mid-twentieth century, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 and the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950. These laws specifically aimed at the black African population in South Africa were passed to institutionalize the separatist and racially discriminatory agenda of the Afrikaner National Party in South Africa, a political group consisting of the descendants of the first European colonists in the seventeenth century.
The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act barred any whites from marrying non-whites, and the Immorality Amendment Act prohibited sexual relationships and cohabitation between whites and non-whites. Though the majority of the legislation enacted during Apartheid in South Africa was repealed in 1991, many claim the racial divide that exists between the whites and non-whites in South Africa continues to widen.
Nearly two decades after the first Apartheid law, the Supreme Court of the United States declared similar prohibitions against interracial marriage and “racial mixing” unconstitutional in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The court unanimously decided anti-miscegenation laws (the legal term for legislation prohibiting interracial marriage and racial mixing) were unconstitutional as violations of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Loving v. Virginia case was brought before the Supreme Court following the arrest of Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, upon returning to their home in Virginia after being legally married in the District of Columbia. In the eyes of the government in the District of Columbia, the Lovings were legally married. According to Virginia law, however, the Lovings were guilty of violating Section 258 of the Virginia Code which states:
If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.
In violating this law, the legal penalty for miscegenation is defined in Section 259, which reads:
If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.
The Lovings were convicted under these laws and sentenced to one-year imprisonment for violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, but the sentencing was suspended by the trial judge should the Loving’s agree to leave Virginia for 25 years. The Lovings appealed the decision made by the circuit courts over the next several years and the appeal was eventually heard by the Supreme Court in December of 1966. In the unanimous Supreme Court decision condemning anti-miscegenation laws, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his opinion for the case,
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 discriminations. 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.
These convictions must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
– Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion on Loving v. Virginia, p.13
I am the firstborn son of an interracial marriage. The son of a white woman and an Asian man who by providence of their geographical location, suffered very little persecution and discrimination in their decision to marry across racial lines. In accordance with the privilege of a home state that actively opposed the enactment of anti-miscegenation laws throughout its statehood, I never considered myself a minority simply because the inequality that plagued oppressed people groups had never been aimed at me. To the best of my recollection, the racial differences of my mother and father were never even a topic of conversation in our home.
In correlation with a home that showed no disparity between race, religion, or culture, the Christianity that my family practiced celebrated the God of all nations, bowed in gratitude to the Son of God who died for collective humanity, and was led by the Spirit that unites diverse peoples and systematically deconstructs man-made barriers, be they physical, emotional, or cultural.
The God I knew was no respecter of persons; He showed no partiality in His actions or words. The God I knew saw all as hopeless and in need of grace; there could be no superior people. The God I knew stood as defender of the oppressed, refuge for the alien, protector of the afflicted. His people were meant to embody these characteristics, but in the face of certain wickedness and animosity stemming from racial differences, the church sinks into the passenger seat and hands the keys over for the secular culture to combat hatred and bigotry. Worse yet, the church seals the doors and exits and seeks shelter from the culture wars in the basement beneath the fellowship hall.
The events that have transpired over the last few days in Charlottesville, VA have deeply troubled me. Anguish over the brokenness of the world and a church that has forgotten its obligation to resist and impede the spread of oppression, injustice, and discrimination is simply not enough. I have concluded that change from a negative set of circumstances is simply not possible when we are only motivated by outrage. Change is only possible when we are personally affected by the negative circumstances we observe in the world.
Many may never experience persecution and discrimination of the kind we have seen throughout the course of history in our nation, but by intentionally creating relationships with those of different cultures, nations, and backgrounds, the church takes a step in the right direction. By loving those across racial, cultural, and social lines, the church strives as one towards the advancement of the Kingdom of God in the world. When the church stands with the outcast, the oppressed, the rejected, the unjustly treated, the underrepresented, believers answer Christ’s call to lay down their life for their brother and sister.
“We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us.”
– 1 John 4:16-19