Loving v. Virginia and its Local Impacts in Texas
by Stefanie Hustoft
The year was 1967, and the African American Civil Rights Movement was in what has been considered its peak years. A husband and wife were fighting for their right to marry, a fight that has benefited many through the years. The husband and wife were Richard and Mildred Loving: an interracial couple arrested in 1958 for marrying out of state, then returning to Virginia, where such a union was illegal. In January of 1959, the couple pleaded guilty, and the state of Virginia sentenced them to one year in jail. The state would suspend the sentence for 25 years on the grounds that they would leave Virginia without re-entry during the period. In 1963 Mildred Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy asking for help in their situation. He referred them to the ACLU, who would help them have the charges against the couple vacated on the grounds that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws conflicted with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In 1965 the Lovings perfected an appeal and took their case to the Supreme Court of Appeals. They agreed with the verdict from the Circuit Court of Caroline County where the case originated from, causing the Lovings to appeal and escalate it to the US Supreme Court in 1967. The court ruled in favor of the Lovings, ruling that all anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
There is no doubt Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, was a significant case for African American civil rights and the United States as a whole. This research aims to examine the Texan perspective on Loving v. Virginia and the degree to which it altered views on interracial marriages in local communities and the effects thereafter. This examination of the local Texan reaction examines the climate in which Loving v. Virginia occurred, how different communities within Texas covered the case and similar incidents, and how the case affected Texan perspectives on interracial marriages. To truly understand the cultural climate in this case occurred in, one must examine the different reactions to the Loving v. Virginia case.
Newspaper coverage of the Loving v. Virginia case in the African American communities in Texas follows a positive trend. Because most newspapers in the United States covered the Loving v. Virginia case as a White man and a part African American, part Indian woman fighting for their right to marry, the African American Civil Rights Movement found significance in it.
For decades prior to the Loving case, there had been organizations whose intent was to better interracial cooperation between Black and White individuals. In the 1920s, there was a Houston organization referred to as the Interracial Commission. The purpose of this organization was to help “bring about understanding and helpful co-operation between the races”. Similarly, there were reports regarding the Commission on Interracial Cooperation in the Dallas Express around this time period. Unlike the Interracial Commission in The Houston Informer, the stated goals of the Commission on Interracial Cooperation were to specifically elevate the safety, status, and rights of Black Americans to that of Whites. Reports of these commissions in Texas were limited to the 1910s-1920s, but this was not the only time interracial organizations popped up in Texas. Shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the women of Denton formed the Women’s Interracial Fellowship to address the city’s racial inequalities and create a community in which Black and White women could connect within. Looking at how Black communities had been vying for interracial cooperation with White Americans both before and after the civil rights movements of the 1960s provides context for the later coverage of the Lovings’ case.
African American run newspapers covered the case closely because of the social associations. The newspaper that covered Loving v. Virginia the most was the San Antonio Register, an African American newspaper that encouraged progressive-leaning politics owned by Valmo Charles Bellinger, a businessman, political leader, and an advocate for civil rights in his community. The reason why the San Antonio Register covered the Loving v. Virginia case may have related to the position Bellinger held as a political leader within the African American community. The African American Civil Rights movement reacted positively towards the changes Loving v. Virginia would bring upon its success, as seen from the hopefulness in newspapers run by African Americans. The article “NAACP Goes into Action in Virginia Miscegenation Case,” an exclusive to the San Antonio Register goes into detail, citing the General Counsel, Robert L. Carter, and attorney as well as NAACP director Andrew D. Weinberger, stating “It is to assert this individual right to freedom and full-fledged citizenship that the NAACP is filing this brief” in support of the Lovings.
The African American communities’ hopes for the success of the Lovings’ case was that it would create further opportunities to obtain more rights and to get closer to equality. An article in the Texas Gulf Coast Register discusses a poll conducted by an African American associate professor, Frank Wilderson, about the church community’s attitudes towards African American civil rights issues. The majority of people who participated in the poll were middle-aged White people who regularly attended church and whose education background was slightly above high school. In terms of the gendered perspective of the poll participants, a little over half were women. The questions gauged their opinions on topics that included: how comfortable they were with interracial marriage, Black leadership and self-determination, how comfortable they would feel if an African American family were to move into their neighborhood, and if they would move into a predominantly Black community. Wilderson expresses that the poll results demonstrate the need to normalize Black leadership and self-determination. Although there was a majority that agreed or disagreed with certain statements pertaining to Black leadership, workplace racism, and housing discrimination, the percentages regarding interracial marriage showed a more even split in opinion. In response to the statement “The Church should work to dispel fears associated with black and white people marrying each other,” 34.4% disagreed, 13.3% strongly disagreed, 33.8% agreed, 11.5% strongly agreed, and 7% declined to answer. The poll originated in Minneapolis, but because the Texas Gulf Coast Register put the article in their paper, it showed that a decent percentage of churchgoers polled believed that a change needed to happen.
Although White demographics were asked their opinions for this poll, the fact that a Black professor conducted it shows that there was an effort to normalize these types of relationships along with Black autonomy. In addition, it also shows how the African American civil rights process of obtaining equality by normalizing the thought of minorities being in positions of leadership and integrating them into White American culture. This method placed the civil rights movement in the eyes of the public with individual cases, then normalized African American self-determination and got the movement closer to its goals of equality. In contrast to this methodology, it is also essential to investigate white communities' less visible coverage of the Loving v. Virginia case.
Although coverage of the Loving v. Virginia case was nearly nonexistent, editors publishing for White audiences drew the little amount of coverage regarding the Lovings’ case or interracial marriage from the Associated Press or other states. These were usually short, curt statements that only named it as the court case pertaining to interracial marriage in Virginia. Any dissent that these articles expressed targeted the judge’s partisanship and not the concept of interracial marriage itself. This aspect implied that these publishers did not care as much about Loving v. Virginia as the African American community. Examining the demographics of the white newspapers may allude to who the intended reader base of these papers was. Still, one should also look at the possible motives for the less visible coverage of the Loving v. Virginia case to have a complete understanding of the white Texan culture’s reaction to interracial marriage.
There are many ways to interpret the lack of coverage around Loving v. Virginia. It could mean there was a purposeful ignorance of the Loving v. Virginia case to maintain the status quo, thus a possible attempt to stifle the voice of the African American Civil Rights movement to prolong the separation of races in Texas. A different yet not wholly unrelated possible motive is the lack of coverage could have meant much of the community believed there would be no significant impacts on their communities. Other possible motives are apathy toward interracial marriage or hope the reader base would not be particularly interested in investing attention in the Lovings’ court case and keeping the racial dynamics the same. There is also the possibility that interracial relationships were so normalized that these communities did not feel a dire need to cover the court case more than was necessary. This final theory hinges on two possibilities: miscegenation laws were to prevent African Americans and White people from marrying, and relations between Mexican Americans and White Americans were normalized to the point that there was no urgency to keep these two communities separated. To understand whether or not Texas normalized interracial marriage between Mexican Americans and White Americans, one must look to the Hispanic community for answers.
Unlike many other places in the United States, Texas had a third significant racial community. Yet, for the most part, Mexican Americans were largely underrepresented in Texas newspapers aside from occasional articles mentioning the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Hispanic editors and writers for the Texas Gulf Coast Register. Combining this information with an examination of LULAC’s efforts in the Latin American Civil Rights movements, there is a greater insight into the Latin American communities’ views of interracial relationships and their relations to the White Texan community.
The primary goals of LULAC were to promote Latin American excellence and to fight to gain equal rights . During the 1960s, the major priorities of LULAC were to make Latin Americans more active in the political climate at the time. One could infer from the newspapers and documents covering LULAC that the group focused on issues that would benefit Latin American communities. Although LULAC aimed to elevate the status of Latin Americans to gain equal footing with White Americans, the methods pursued at the time did not intend to change the status quo too drastically. Looking at the 1967 Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas and Brian D. Behnken’s Fighting Their Own Battles, the primary goals of the Latin American Civil Rights movement were to integrate themselves into the White American status quo without too much regard for the advancement of other minority communities in Texas. As explained in Behnken’s book, LULAC opted to fight separate from the African American Civil Rights movement, feeling that joining forces with them would undermine their movement in the eyes of those in power.
The aims of LULAC for Latin American equality could, at the time of the Loving v. Virginia case, imply Latin Americans may not have supported interracial marriage. The Latin American community’s resistance could have been due to the rationalization if interracial marriage were to become a norm, navigating the political and racial climate would be more difficult for the direction LULAC wanted to take during that time. One could infer that the lack of attention towards the Loving case was an attempt to increase the distance between the Latin and African American civil rights movements. Using LULAC’s 1964 “Ten Point Program” as evidence, the distance away from the interracial marriage could have been a way to ignore the possibility of an increasingly changing political climate away from what LULAC had strived for. However, a year after the Supreme Court ruled in the Lovings’ favor, the residents of Odem saw interracial marriages between a Black and Mexican American couple celebrated in The Odem-Edroy Times. Seeing this transition following the Loving case, one should examine the free love culture and how it embraced the reality of interracial marriages.
The culture of free love, more commonly known as hippie culture, gained notoriety for its tolerant, anti-war, anti-segregation sentiments among the youth. Young adults gave the 1960s and 1970s its reputation of free love with their protests and advocacy for progressive policies such as equal rights and integration. College students, in particular, were incredibly active in politics at this point due to the prominence of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements. Texas integrated interracial marriage into its culture with increases in progressive political activity amongst young people.
Student newspapers such as North Texas State University’s North Texas Daily, Abilene Christian University’s The Optimist, and Western Texas College’s The Western Texas provided a lot of evidence that displayed the Texan youth’s activism and acceptance of interracial marriage. This aligns with the general trend of progressive ideals of the college-attending youth. Pertaining to interracial couples, these student newspapers generally talked about these relationships positively, trying to integrate this new change into the Texan culture. After the Loving v. Virginia case in 1968, one can see an example of student media commending mainstream outlets for embracing “liberalization” by allowing conversation involving progressive topics such as interracial marriage and homosexuality in The Megaphone, a student newspaper from Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. The article talks explicitly about the Smothers Brothers, a comedic duo, who The Megaphone cites as being part of CBS’s liberalization and their season premiere referencing progressive topics. Even though the statements about the Smothers Brothers do not give much insight into the mindsets about interracial marriage, the comments they made show the trend of liberalization starting to occur in broader media.
A different newspaper, the H-SU Brand, from Harden-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas, contains an editorial by a retired professor of Christian ethics, T.B. Maston. The editorial aims to discuss how people should not use Christianity to discredit interracial marriage as the Bible prohibits marriages between people of different nations and religions but never states anything about people of other races. Maston felt interracial marriages were difficult and should be thought through, which is a similar opinion shared by many people who were concerned about how well these relationships and the integration of biracial children into society. However, Maston argued the bible was not against a union between people of two different races. The H-SU Brand publishing these opinions speaks volumes about the warming cultural climate making interracial marriages more accepted. The student newspapers initiating conversation around interracial marriage in their circles invite other media outlets to join the discussion and allow change to happen, whether in the long or short term.
Religious media was a massive advocate for normalizing interracial relationships, especially in the Catholic community in Corpus Christi. In fact, after the Loving v. Virginia court case, the San Antonio Register stopped covering stories on interracial marriages, whereas such articles increased within the Texas Catholic communities in Corpus Christi. Catholicism then was incredibly progressive and often supported both the African American and Latin American civil rights movements, contrasting with the San Antonio Register’s preference to cover stories about current civil rights movements and local news. In this contrast, the San Antonio Register moved on from the interracial marriage case once the Supreme Court ruled in the Lovings’ favor. At the same time, Corpus Christi seemed more concerned with integrating the decision of Loving v. Virginia into their culture. A Catholic newspaper in Corpus Christi, Texas Gulf Coast, a Catholic newspaper would often print progressive articles in favor of interracial relations, interracial marriages, and many other civil rights issues. Many of their editorials by progressive clergy members would express their opinions on multiple civil rights issues and how supporting minorities’ fight for equality was the Christian thing to do. One example is from an ask and answer editorial asking if there is “an instance of an interracial marriage in the Bible”. The answer was that although the Bible doesn’t specifically mention race, he cites a quarrel between Moses’ wife and brother and how she was unhappy with his prospective wife because she was a foreigner, not due to race. The progressive ideals of the Texas Gulf Coast Register follow the trend of Catholicism’s general progressive practices, such as the commandment to love thy neighbor and promoting community service, and helping those in need. Supporting these civil rights causes would fit under the umbrella of helping those less fortunate. The Catholic community in Texas seemed to favor interracial marriages and attempted to normalize them.
However, Catholics were not the only religious group that were outspoken on interracial marriage. In multiple instances, reports discussed the debate on whether the Bible prohibits marriages between individuals of different races. In many of these articles, religious public figures stated that the Bible has no scripture banning interracial marriage and that the government should dissolve laws against these unions. These conversations were happening amongst Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and in Christian conferences . There had been some pushback against the concept of interracial marriages within these spheres, but they were more concerned with censoring it in media rather than preventing it in real life . Out of all of the demographics examined for this research, Christians were the most vocal and most supportive of interracial marriages in theory. Their support of the movement was based solely on whether the Bible allowed it. However, when confronted with these relationships in media, they were uncomfortable and thought that books or films should censor these romantic bonds. However, Christians were not the only Texas demographic that attempted to normalize interracial marriage.
The military community was also progressive towards civil rights issues. The military community in Texas was not a majority, especially after the decline of the number of bases after World War II. That particular community was somewhat an anomaly because of its diversity, due to people stationed there from all around the United States and from various racial backgrounds. Although this diversity may not necessarily mean that military communities are more progressive, there is evidence alluding to the general acceptance of interracial marriages in the case of the military community in Texas. However, one may assume that the military presence within Texas was relatively limited and confined to the various bases throughout the state. However, there were numerous instances of individuals leaving the base to gain access to civilian churches, stores, entertainment, and other amenities. As military personnel mingled with civilians, and at times lived among them, there was a connection between these two groups that allowed one to be influenced by the other.
Unlike civilian communities, military bases were already more integrated, so it made sense that they were also more accepting of interracial marriage. The Fort Hood Sentinel had an article asking if interracial marriages were any different from marriages between two people of the same race. The majority of responses from those interviewed stated there was a slight difference due to their two cultures not being the same, which requires some effort to find common ground. Taking this into account, the core of their marriages were the same as a marriage between two persons of the same race: The marriage requires love and hard work for it to be successful. Another article in the same issue asks if interracial marriages can work. The majority of answers were that interracial marriages are partially accepted. However, there still were prejudices possibly discouraging them on a societal level, or there was still too much discrimination against minorities. This issue of the Fort Hood Sentinel reveals how open-minded and diverse the people stationed at the Temple military base are. Although most of those interviewed accepted interracial marriages in the editorial, there was the understanding that there were multiple social issues that may interfere with its success. The primary point was the cultivation of the discrimination culture in the United States. Interracial marriages were also more accepted within military communities because of the amount of exposure to people of other nations, races, and cultures. It was not an entirely unusual experience for people in the military to marry while stationed overseas. Exposure to other races and cultures can influence a more progressive worldview in that community. However, it is crucial to realize the military community does not represent the average Texan since many people stationed in Texas are not necessarily native to the state and thus hold differing views. Because of this, one should analyze the aftermath of Loving v. Virginia in other parts of Texas to gain a well-rounded understanding of the integration Loving v. Virginia into Texan culture additionally if there were any changes to how interracial marriages were perceived.
Similar to the military community, urban settings in Texas were more likely to have more diverse communities. Cities with diverse populations had the challenge of trying to appease a large population. Sometimes this would result in an attempt to ignore these issues. Other times, marginalized communities would create their own platform to discuss issues and promote changes like the San Antonio Register. In many cities’ cases, Loving v. Virginia and the rising rates of interracial marriage resulted in cities attempting to start a conversation about it. Usually, this would be through newspapers in the community covering stories about interracial marriages in other parts of the United States. Sometimes they would simply go into presenting the statistics around marriages, often highlighting the rates of interracial marriage. This type of coverage, while not seeming to say too much about the culture these newspapers were in, shows a general acceptance and understanding of the concept of interracial marriage. This trend could be due to urban settings being home to university campuses that did not shy away from initiating conversations about interracial marriage. These metropolitan newspapers did not cover stories of local interracial marriages or dating alludes to either a small minority of interracial couples in the location or a hesitance to accept the new demographic in the community. One could argue for the latter because student newspapers in cities were usually at the forefront of conversations on interracial marriages. There was also a major concern of upsetting the White majority, which may have taken longer to accept the decision made in the Loving v. Virginia case, as there were still issues of discrimination against minorities. This concern about the White majority’s acceptance of interracial marriage limited conversations major urban newspapers could have since the topic was still foreign and taboo. These limitations explain metropolitan newspapers' desire to normalize interracial marriages to the populous before daring to bring the conversations to a more localized level. Although urban settings accomplished the integration of Loving v. Virginia through this tactic, we can see newspapers from more rural areas were less solidified in their acceptance of interracial marriage.
Opinions in smaller communities seemed to be less expressed in newspapers, which could be the result of people from smaller communities feeling like they have more hegemony with those whom they lived with. However, the opinions towards interracial marriages in these communities show through mentions of the topic in newspapers. These few mentions ranged from being opposed to interracial marriage for social reasons or trying to engage the community in educating themselves about interracial marriages as well as other alternative lifestyles. Although opinions about interracial marriages are clearer in newspapers originating from rural areas, articles that brought up the topic were rare and these newspapers had little to no coverage of the Loving v. Virginia court case. Because of the little exposure these smaller communities had to interracial relationships and similar issues, there was a sizeable amount of adjustments to be made before such relationships would be somewhat accepted in the communities. Some communities posted anti-miscegenation opinions from elsewhere in order to feel like their negative views towards interracial marriage were valid such as the Big Lake Wildcat from Big Lake, Texas, did. However, the majority of newspapers mentioning interracial marriage were advertising speakers or community meetings meant to educate these small communities about what they still classified as alternative lifestyles. Although the conversation about interracial marriage eventually died down around the early 1980s, it didn’t stop other movements by alternative communities from taking the Loving v. Virginia case and using it as their own.
After the 1970s, the prominence of articles focused on interracial marriage slowed down, and new issues took the spotlight and claimed the case fought against anti-miscegenation laws as the champion for their civil rights movement. The LGBT community claimed Loving v. Virginia as an example of how the government should not restrict people of different races or the same sex from marrying. The community often cited Loving v. Virginia, arguing the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments as well as other civil rights laws protect the LGBT community’s rights. They argued the Fourteenth Amendment, namely the Equal Protection Clause, protects them from discrimination just as it did in the Loving court case. A massive voice for the LGBT Civil Rights movement in Texas was The Dallas Voice, a Dallas-based newspaper focusing on the LGBT community. Before the decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, the LGBT Civil Rights movement would cite Loving v. Virginia in their argument supporting their cause and connecting with the struggle of gaining protection from discrimination based on the people they love. However, after Obergefell v. Hodges, the court case legalizing same-sex marriage, Loving v. Virginia was no longer part of the conversation towards equality.
The research through the various Texas newspapers alludes to primarily African Americans covering the Loving case as it was happening, while other communities seemed to ignore it or take stories about the case from other states’ newspapers. However, after the Supreme Court ruled in the Loving’s favor, stories about interracial marriages became more frequent in an attempt to integrate them into society, with university newspapers attempting to lead the conversation. After the 1970s, the LGBT Civil Rights movement used the Lovings’ case in their argument for protection from discrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. How Texas reacted to the Loving v. Virginia case holds major significance as it reveals Texas’ willingness to adapt to interracial relations at that point in time and draws parallels to the LGBT community’s fight for equality. The significances of the Loving case were one of the significant steps for the civil rights movements in America.
By examining Texans’ reactions to the Loving case and the context they occurred within, there is an obfuscation of the change it brought amongst many White and Mexican-American communities. However, by looking at Black and Church newspapers, one can see that there were communities that followed the Lovings’ case and were in favor of normalizing interracial marriage and decriminalizing it. Although other states had already discarded their anti-miscegenation laws before the ruling, in Texas this was a groundbreaking development that helped the state in accepting interracial relations.
 "The Crime of Being Married. A Virginia couple fights to overturn an old law against miscegenation." Life Magazine, 18 March 1966.
 "Loving v. Virginia." LII / Legal Information Institute. Accessed August 18, 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1.
 “Principal Moten Holds Conference With Pres. Harding.” The Houston Informer (Houston, TX). February 26, 1921.
 Ramsay, Annetta. “How Denton Women’s Interracial Fellowship fought for paved streets and equal access in the 1960s.” The Denton Record-Chronical (Denton, TX). April 9, 2021; “Encouraging Change: The Denton Women’s Interracial Fellowship.” Denton County Office of History and Culture: Blog. March 2, 2018; Matustik, David. “Place 5: Cheek, Stewart Vie in Race.” The North Texas Daily (Denton, TX). March 31, 1977.
 Barr, Alwyn. "Bellinger, Valmo." The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed. Accessed August 17, 2017. http://www.blackpast.org/aaw/bellinger-valmo-1994.
 “Va. Interracial Couple Gets Help from LDC.” San Antonio Register (San Antonio, TX). March 3, 1967.
 Gough, William. “No Bias Immunity Found in Churches.” Texas Gulf Coast Register (Corpus Christi, TX). November 29, 1968.
 “High Court Rules Inter-Marriage is No Crime.” The Baytown Sun (Baytown, TX). June 12, 1967.
 Shweid, Barry. “AP Special Report- Liberals May Be Wrong.” The Baytown Sun (Baytown, TX). January 13, 1967.
 League of United Latin American Citizens. “LULAC 10-Point Program.” July 18, 1964.
 Texas. Legislature. Senate. “Journal of the Senate of the State of Texas, Regular Session of the Sixtieth Legislature.” May 29, 1967.
 Behnken, Brian D. Fighting Their Own Battles (2011). 66-68, 98-101.
 League of United Latin American Citizens. “LULAC 10-Point Program.” July 18, 1964.
 “San Patricia County had its first interracial marriage…” The Odem-Edroy Times (Odem, TX). January 4, 1968.
 Zeh, John. “Tom and Dick are Back on Liberalized Network.” The Megaphone (Georgetown, TX). October 11, 1968.
 Maston, T. B. “Interracial Marriages and the Bible.” The H-SU Brand (Abilene, TX) February 11, 1969.
 “Ask & Learn: Was Moses’ Wife a Negro.” Texas Gulf Coast Register (Corpus Christi, TX). May 10, 1968.
 WBAP-TV. “Church Convention.” NBC. Fort Worth, TX. September 27, 1966; Reid, W.W. “News in the World of Religion.” The Harper Herald (Harper, TX). December 6, 1968; “Frankness, Confession Mark Dayton Forum on Human Relations.” Christian Chronicle (Oklahoma City, OK). June 14, 1968; “Workers Backed By Presbyterians.” Stephenville Daily Empire (Stephenville, TX). September 2, 1966; “Presbyterians Approve Interracial Marriage.” The Cuero Record (Cuero, TX). September 5, 1966.
 Rogers, W.C. “The Literary Guidepost.” The Daily-News Telegram (Sulphur Springs, TX). February 1, 1962; “Smothers Brothers Find Censorship Less Prevalent.” Lone Star Lutheran (Seguin, TX). October 4, 1968.
 Feller, Mary. “Troop Tips, Topics.” Armored Sentinel (Temple, TX). December 22, 1967; Heimer, Mel. “My New York.” The Cuero Record (Cuero, TX). January 22, 1968; “At the Aztec.” The Albany News (Albany, TX). November 21, 1963; “Bill Upsets Off-Base Segregation.” The Cuero Record (Cuero, TX). September 17, 1963; “RWY.” The Pine Needle (Kountze, TX). December 21, 1967.
 Hairston, Robert. “Bi-racial Marriages Have Varied Social Acceptance.” Fort Hood Sentinel (Temple, TX). May 18, 1978.
 “Can Interracial Marriages Work.” Fort Hood Sentinel (Temple, TX). May 18, 1978.
 “Udall to Speak at SHSU on February 7.” Polk County Enterprise (Livingston, TX). February 6, 1977.
 “Statistics Say Marriage More Popular Than Ever.” Rio Grande Herald (Rio Grande City, TX). June 21, 1973.
 Fisher, O. Clark. “Washington Newsletter.” The Big Lake Wildcat (Big Lake, TX). June 19, 1969.
 “Udall to Speak at SHSU on February 7.” Polk County Enterprise (Livingston, TX). February 6, 1977.
 Keen, Lisa. “Judiciary Committee Passes Measure to Repeal DOMA.” Dallas Voice (Dallas, TX). November 11, 2011.
 American Civil Liberties Union. “The Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People.” ACLU Briefing Paper. Winter 1999,
Page last updated 8:47 AM, June 30, 2022