Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
No, Ty, that is not what I was saying.
While it is true that Loving held that a statute criminalizing interracial marriage was unconstitutional on EP and DP grounds, the dicta was clear that civil statutes barring interracial marriage would also be held unconstitutional should such an issue come before the court.
However, what the Loving court did not say is whether a civil statute that did not criminalize interracial marriage but did not provide for interracial marriage would be unconstitutional under EP, DP, or both.
Because of how the court was so focused on the criminal aspects of the staute in the EP portion of the opinion, I believe that the EP arguments in Loving were limited to the criminal aspects of the statute. Furthermore, based on the language of the holding in the DP part of the case (i.e, marriage as essential for our existence and survival), I don't think that the DP arguments in Loving would extend to gay marriages.
|
And I believe that your reading of the case would earn you a gentleman's C in a decent law school. But, it's a free country, and the thing that separates us from the Russians is your liberty to come here and post silly theories about constitutional law while I drink wine. In Russia, you would be arrested, or offered a job with the security apparatus, and I would have to drink vodka, which I don't like nearly so much. God bless America! And the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia!
