Preview

American Government

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
720 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
American Government
The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (1967) resulted in the striking down of state laws that prohibited whites and African Americans from marrying. Mildred Loving, one of the parties in the case, issued a statement on the fortieth-anniversary of her case in which she urged that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. Q. Are the two issues—laws prohibiting interracial marriage and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage—similar? Why or why not? I believe laws prohibiting interracial marriage and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are similar. Marriage is a unique bond between a man and a woman, who agree to live together and fulfill each others moral and physical demands. However, such a bondage between a woman and a woman or a man and a man would be against nature. This is a widely accepted notion. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the judge believed when God created different races and placed them on separate continents. Men should not interfere with His arrangements and should not pursue interracial relationships. However, the ACLU filed a motion on behalf of the Lovings that Racial Integrity Act 1924 and Statutes preventing marriages solely on the basis of classification violates The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment. This case holds its significance as it redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of gay rights have cited this case in support of a right to marriage. Although opponents argue that this is not viable as the 'Loving' marriage was still between a man and a woman. In the United States, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Americans considered the freedom to choose a marriage partner a fundamental right. The idea that government could interfere with that choice is unthinkable.
The case is also significant because it is about how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a legal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of different races.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), is a case about a same-sex couple that was married in 2007 in Ontario, Canada because at that time same-sex marriage was not legal in New York. The same-sex couple, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer resided in New York. Two years after the couple was married, Spyer died, and left all of her estate to her wife, Windsor. When Windsor went to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, she was denied because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which excluded same-sex partners in definition of marriage and spouse. Windsor went on with the issue, paid estate taxes over $300,000, but Window was denied the refund. She then challenged DOMA saying Section 3 was unconstitutional. After a few years with the case working its way through the courts, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: Groups of the same sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states bans on the same sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same sex marriages that occurred in jurisdiction that provide for such marriages. James Obergefell (plaintiffs) in each case argued that the states statutes violated Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S Courts of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverse and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violated the couples fourteenth amendment rights to equal protection and due process.…

    • 604 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Loving v Virginia a married couple from Washington D.C. moved to Virginia where they were then subject to Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibit the marrying of different races with another. In Virginia, this statute prohibited the marriage between whites and any other race. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, were married in Washington D.C. They then moved to the state of Virginia where they faced criminal charges. Both of them pled guilty and were sentenced to one year imprisonment but the sentence would be waved for 25 years if they moved out of state and didn’t return.…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Lovings were represented by American Civil Liberties Union and had the conviction appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that their rights to equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. The Racial Integrity law was stroke down. The Supreme Court recognized that this law was meant to keep all others segregated from Caucasians.…

    • 564 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hence, in 1963, the case was repealed by Lovings stating that the judgment was in violation of the fourteenth amendment, but the state trail and the courts denied it signifying that the statues were constitutional. The state failing in their efforts the case was brought to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren proceeding over the case re-opened in 1967 gave the final verdict that previous sentencing by the state was in violation of principal of equality. Then ordered that under the constitution the freedom to marry or not another person of a different race was an individual choice and was not for the states to decide. Accordingly, the limitation on admitting racial minorities placed by the Brown University a state funded university was also in violation of equal protection clause, which paved the way for Affirmative action in 1961 that requires equal access to education for underrepresented factions, such as women and…

    • 454 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were Richard and Mildred Loving, who were represented by the ACLU in the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff argued the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional and anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explains, “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” As declared by the Constitution and Maynard v. Hill case, marriage is a civil right for citizens of the United States and the decision of whether one decides to marry a colored person or not cannot be infringed by any state. Denying anyone their given right to marry without due process of the…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Though many know of the court case, not all people know the history of it. The part that many know is that the people were gay, lesbian, and so on, and most people also know that they were fighting for the right to marry. What too many people do not know is that even though court Justices were against it, the majority did not care since it did not affect them. Justice Scalia said the following in his statement, “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.” Since in many states, previous to the law passing, barely anyone who was same-sex could marry their spouse.Though this privilege was granted to opposite-sex spouses, along with insured plans, medical plans, and many other privileges. When the law was passed, same-sex couples would have the same privileges. “Insured plans in every state will require to offer coverage to same-sex spouses to the extent such plans cover opposite-sex…

    • 559 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    American Government

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Chief Legislator: The president can initiate a legislative agenda for congressional action. The president outlines his policy goals each year in the State of the Union message to Congress. (See Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.)…

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had a case brought before them on April 28th, 2015 named Obergefell v.Hodges (Maureen-Johnston. 2017). The case was presented by groups of same-sex couples wanting to bring forward the issue of marriage equality. Their argument was the under the 14th amendment, that the ban of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. "Obergefell v. Hodges." the 14th amendment states…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Loving Vs Virginia Essay

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In June of 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving married in the District of Columbia. They were residents of Virginia but due to Virginia’s laws they weren’t able to marry within their state. The state of Virginia prevented marriages based on racial classification. After the couple married they returned to their home state in Caroline County where they were then charged for violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. The Loving’s went to court and was sentenced to a year in jail. However, the judge suspended the trial for twenty-five years on the condition that the Loving’s wouldn’t return to Virginia for those twenty-five years.…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Virginia was a court case in Virginia that made it illegal to marry someone of another race. The constitutionality of the statute was questioned. It was a white persons right to marry who they wanted, however it was considered demoting yourself if you married an African American. There were many objections to this statute because people wanted to be able to marry whoever they wanted. Lastly, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education was a case that was brought up the Supreme Court about desegregating schools.…

    • 471 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    us government

    • 2528 Words
    • 11 Pages

    1. PS 101 -- First Exam Study Guide -- 15% of your final grade -- 3 substantial paragraphs each…

    • 2528 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    U.S. Government

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Describe how the U.S. Constitution was formed. Use historical dates and references in your answer.…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    U.S government

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages

    “A war where every man is enemy to every man,” where people live in “ continual fear and danger of violent death.” Thomas Hobbes, an english political philosopher, describes what life would be without a government. All governments tax, punish, regulate and restrict their citizens in order to help accommodate peace and protection. The federal government has many purposes in which it protects the citizens and the the principles that the nation was built upon.…

    • 544 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Loving Vs Virginia

    • 1779 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Virginia: The Case Over Interracial Marriage”). In the state of Virginia, the couple was sent to prison because they violated the miscegenation laws. One late night in their Virginia home, police broke into their house. Later, they were brought to prison.The authorities educated them about the laws of Virginia. The statement shows what happened to the Lovings. “At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages” (“Loving v. Virginia LII”). Due to the fact they were charged guilty, the Lovings made the decision to take their case to court. On April 10, 1967, the angry couple explained that the law was a violation of their privacy and well-being. The following shows the Loving’s reason to get help. “These Lovings claimed that the state law violated their 14th Amendment rights to pursuit life, liberty and happiness” (“Loving v Virginia” laws.com). In this ruling,the judge was Leon. M Bazile. Immediately, he made his final decision about the conflict. He believed that people of different ethnicities were not supposed to love each other. Leon Bazile quoted, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races…

    • 1779 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays