Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Loving v. Virginia - Racial Discrimination
Racial Discrimination: Loving v. Virginia
The issue presented in Loving v. Virginia (1967) was rather national basis was the proper standard of review to use in order to evaluate constitutionality. There were statutes in Virginia that may not have been constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause should not/does not allow a restriction on the freedom to marry solely based on the race of the individuals who plan to get married. There was laws enacted in Virginia that made it a felony for black and white people to intermarry, and when that took place many took issue with the constitutionality of that law
. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld the law, because it stated that "racial integrity" was important and should be preserved for the citizens of the state. It was also argued that both black and white were being punished and/or discriminated against, so there was no actual racial discrimination taking place. With that in mind, it was stated that the statute was well within the rights of Virginia law
The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States was called into question and analyzed. In that Clause, the issue is that everyone deserves equal...
In other words, issues such as race or gender are not open to discrimination because they are not characteristics that a person can change or elect to avoid or adjust. While Virginia was convinced that discriminating based on race as long as it was more than one race was acceptable, there were others who did not believe that this was the case
. In order to better understand the reasoning here, it is necessary to see both sides of the argument.
Those who believed that the statute was legal and proper based their argument on the idea that the statute was affecting more than one race, so it was not discriminating against people in a racial way
. In order to be truly discriminatory, the statute would have to select one race and deny that race something, while not denying it to any and all other races. Preserving the alleged racial integrity of the area was very important to individuals who were concerned about racial mixture and interaction. With that in mind, the statute was made in an effort to ensure that racial mixing did not take place
. Whether this was actually "racist" or the people behind the law truly believed that what they were doing was right was not the issue at hand, and there was more to consider than just what a group of lawmakers wanted and needed to "protect" their state and society. The will of the people also matters, and when the will of the people is strong the laws may have to be changed and adjusted to reflect the people and the times in which they live.
Those who were against the law from the…
Works Cited
Loving v. Virginia. 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. 1082. Findlaw. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1.
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. 1082
Loving, 1967
Loving, 1967
Legalizing Gay Marriage Same-sex marriage is arguably one of the most controversial topics in the current American political debate. In many ways, the fact that the topic is so controversial is surprising. After all, it is difficult to see how same-sex marriage impacts those who are not homosexual or do not have homosexual family members. Moreover, in a society that prides itself on the idea of equality, to deny someone the
standard joke about America in the 1960s claims that, if you can remember the decade, you did not live through it. Although perhaps intended as a joke about drug usage, the joke also points in a serious way to social change in the decade, which was so rapid and far-reaching that it did seem like the world changed almost daily. This is the paradox of Todd Gitlin's "years of
Marrying Citizens! Raced Subjects? Re-thinking the Terrain of Equal Marriage Discourse," Suzanne Lenon attempts to parse the underlying racial assumptions present in the legal fight for marriage equality in Canada, and in doing so reveals that this topic is as much about racial identity as sexual identity. By examining Lemon's article alongside some other relevant research, one is able to see how notions of universal equality are complicated by
The advent of World War II saw and end of the period of economic turmoil and massive unemployment known as the Great Depression, and thus was a time of increased opportunity for many of the nation's citizens and immigrants, but the experiences of some groups during and following the war were far less positive than others. Some of this was due to the different histories that different immigrant groups
Anti-Miscegnation Statutes in the United States Anti-Miscegenation Statutes in the United States Previous to Loving v. Virginia, there were several cases on the subject of miscegenation. In Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court made a ruling that the conviction of an Alabama couple for interracial sex, confirmed on the plea by the Alabama Supreme Court, did not disrupt the Fourteenth Amendment. Interracial marital sex was considered a felony, whereas adulterous sex
The true spirit and meaning of the amendments, as we said in the Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wall. 36), cannot be understood without keeping in view the history of the times when they were adopted, and the general objects they plainly sought to accomplish. At the time when they were incorporated into the Constitution, it required little knowledge of human nature to anticipate that those who had long been regarded