The US Supreme Court acted unlawfully by striking down anti-interracial marriage laws!?

Question

1.  The Voters of the state of Virginia decided that they collectively did not want any miscegenation allowed within their state (interracial marriage), so they enacted such sentiments into state law (The Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924).

2. The voters enacted these laws based on religious tenets (evident in Judge Leon Bazile's comments upon Mildred Jetter and Richard Loving pleading guilty to miscegenation in 1959: 

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. THE FACT THAT HE SEPARATED THE RACES SHOWS THAT HE INTENDED THEM NOT TO INTERMINGLE."

3. The Lovings then appealed to the US Supreme Court in Loving V. the State of Virginia in 1967, which case the Loving's won. The result was that the US Supreme Court ruled ALL anti-miscegenation laws (including those of the other 15 states that had them) were unconstitutional by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

4. Many White-Americans (especially in the South) were INFURIATED at the court ruling, claiming that “the Supreme Court has usurped power from the people to decide what is legal and what is not”, and “The Supreme Court should have no ability to pass legislation contrary to the will of the people” (even though the Supreme Court passed no legislation, rather repealed an unconstitutional piece of legislation enacted by the voters).

Now 40 years after this historic precedent, there is hardly a single American who would argue that miscegenation laws were appropriate let alone constitutional (nor would there be many Americans who would argue that the “judiciary is legislating from the bench!” or that “the courts are functioning as a monarch!”).

My question:
How are the conditions here with the controversy over interracial marriage any different from those we are experience today with gay marriage? 

In both cases:
1. Discriminatory laws were proposed and passed by the electorate.
2. The arguments for proliferation of such laws were inherently religious.
3. The Supreme Courts ultimately decided that such laws were unconstitutional (to their respective jurisdictions).
4. The opposition immediately screamed that THEIR rights were being trampled upon by those respective courts MERELY DOING THEIR JOB (hearing appeals to laws and judging the constitutionality of such accordingly).

Holy Cow! · Accepted Answer

Seems that no one wants to acknowledge the fact that gays pay taxes and there is no logical reason not to give them marriage. Marriage predates religion and last I checked religious groups don't pay taxes so no say for invisible beings.

? · Answer

There is no difference.  Both groups are/were being discriminated against completely unreasonably.  It is unconstitutional (and simply unfair) to deny certain groups the rights granted to other equivalent groups.  Likewise, to add such denial to the language of a constitution would (in my unschooled opinion) fly directly in the face of such a document that is designed to grant equal rights to all.

The California Supreme Court acted completely within its bounds by striking down an unconstitutional ban, both in 1948 and in 2008.

fdm215 · Answer

The arguments against same sex marriages are just about identical to those people made against interracial marriages.  Most were based on one group trying to impose their moral values on another group.   Most arguments seem to grow from people's religious beliefs.  

It is the role of the US Supreme Court to determine what is and is not unconstitutional.  If a law violates the US Constitution you can be sure it will be struck down.

krupsk · Answer

That was very nicely said. 

The court has an obligation to strike down laws that are contrary to the constitution or individuals protected rights. That is what the system of checks and balances is supposed to do. 

I will give you a star for that one.

Anonymous · Answer

you're absolutely right: there's no difference.
this is why the whole "states rights" argument is such a crock. put enough lunatics in any one region and they'll enact laws that the whole of civilized society will be repelled by. and what's worse is they'll do it under the cover of religion. separation of church and state, anyone?

nomad · Answer

This is an issue of rights. California has allowed and continues to allow Civil Unions. Homosexuals are given the same rights as married people in a Civil Union. So, nothing has changed. This is clearly symbolic. 

Your question was well written, although if this is truly, solely about rights, it has changed nothing. They are already getting the benefits.

Alex · Answer

Tell me where in the Bible it says God divided people by race?

MoltarRocks · Answer

Heterosexual marriage can produce biological offspring, regardless of race or ethnicity (or the product thereof).  

Homosexual marriage cannot directly do so.

zclifton2 · Answer

Does it really bother you when you lose with a governmental decision, well get used to it!

Anonymous · Answer

Race and sexual preference are not equivalent in the sense you don't choose your race but you choose your sexual preference.

Trending News

The US Supreme Court acted unlawfully by striking down anti-interracial marriage laws!?

10 Answers