Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

Happy Loving Day

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by philnotfil, Jun 12, 2023.

  1. philnotfil

    philnotfil GC Hall of Fame

    17,727
    1,789
    1,718
    Apr 8, 2007
    This one is important in our family. We remind our children about it each year. Wife's parents had to travel to another state to get married because this hadn't been decided yet.

    Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia

    On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision in favor of the Lovings that overturned their criminal convictions and struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. The Court's opinion was written by chief justice Earl Warren, and all the justices joined it.

    The Court first addressed whether Virginia's Racial Integrity Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which reads: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Virginia officials had argued that the Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it "equally burdened" both whites and non-whites, since the punishment for violating the statute was the same regardless of the offender's race; for example, a white person who married a black person was subject to the same penalties as a black person who married a white person.

    The Court had accepted this "equal burden" argument 84 years earlier in its 1883 decision Pace v. Alabama. But in Loving, the Court rejected the argument.[36]

    [W]e reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations ....

    ...

    The State [of Virginia] finds support for its "equal application" theory in the decision of the Court in Pace v. Alabama. ... However, as recently as the 1964 Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court."

    — Loving, 388 U.S. at 8, 10 (citations omitted).[37]
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2023
    • Like Like x 6
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,612
    2,861
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Wonderful. Thanks for reminder. And there is a passage in the original trial court opinion that should be read by all those who favor law based on religion.

    Happy for your wife’s family and yours
     
  3. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Now that is something we should celebrate. Sorry your parents dealt with that brother.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    3,884
    835
    2,088
    Apr 24, 2007
    Did not know this, thank you Phil.
     
  5. ThePlayer

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    38,442
    5,207
    2,193
    Apr 3, 2007
    I assume 'Virginia is for Lovers' came out a bit later? o_O
     
  6. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    35,666
    1,790
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Truly amazing and depressing that lasted as long as it did. That it existed at all. Especially in a country founded on the concept of freedom.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1