Some of our younger members may find this hard to believe, but in 1967 (not so long ago) the Commonwealth of Virginia went to the Supreme Court to defend its law making it a felony for a white person to marry a black person. Fifteen other states had similar laws: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Fourteen other states had repealed similar laws within the previous 15 years: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
The Court struck down the law in a 9-0 vote, holding it to be inconsistent with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia had explained its decision upholding the law by noting the legislative purposes: to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens and prevent the corruption of blood, a mongrel breed of citizens, and the obliteration of racial pride. The state also argued that there was a rational basis for the law because the scientific evidence was substantially in doubt. But it was perfectly lawful for non-white citizens to marry across racial lines.
Mildred Loving, who challenged the law with her husband, died last week.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_re_us/obit_loving_4
The Court struck down the law in a 9-0 vote, holding it to be inconsistent with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia had explained its decision upholding the law by noting the legislative purposes: to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens and prevent the corruption of blood, a mongrel breed of citizens, and the obliteration of racial pride. The state also argued that there was a rational basis for the law because the scientific evidence was substantially in doubt. But it was perfectly lawful for non-white citizens to marry across racial lines.
Mildred Loving, who challenged the law with her husband, died last week.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_re_us/obit_loving_4
. As the Court noted, quoting an earlier concurring opinion of Potter Stewart (of Virginia) and William O. Douglas, they "could not conceive of a valid legislative purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense." That 30 states could have had such a law as recently as 1952, or 16 in 1967, makes me wonder why it was so difficult to interpret "deny any person...the equal protection of the laws." Originalist, contitutionalist, and activist, all in one decision.
