Listen up,$hyte-for-br@ins. Loving V Virginia was not a gender-based argument. Never was, never will be. Got it? Here, look...."Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage."<quoted text>
This time, stupid, take notes.
What you are saying is like saying everybody had the right to marry someone of the same race before Loving v VA. The problem was the "same race" is different for people of different races, so there was an equal rights issue.
And the "opposite sex" is different for people of different genders, so we have an equal right issue.
Does it mention gender? NO!!!
Citation. 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. 1082.
Brief Fact Summary. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse. The constitutionality of the statutes was called into question.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
Facts. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or a black person to intermarry with a white person. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia held that the statutes served the legitimate state purpose of preserving the “racial integrity” of its citizens. The State argued that because its miscegenation statutes punished both white and black participants in an interracial marriage equally, they cannot be said to constitute invidious discrimination based on race and, therefore, the statutes commanded mere rational basis review.
Issue. Was rational basis the proper standard of review by which to evaluate the constitutionality of the statutes?
Were the Virginia miscegenation statutes constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause?"
Does it mention gender? NO!!!
"Bishop’s authoritative 1852 treatise on the law of marriage explained that “it has always... been deemed requisite to the entire validity of every marriage ... that the parties should be of different sex,” and that “[m]arriage between two persons of one sex could have no validity.” Pet.Br.7. And Davis, writing in 1985, said that “true marriage”is,
, a “heterosexual relationship in which reproduction and child care are assumed.” CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE
1, 6-7. But it is certainly true that most historical authorities did not address the idea of marriage between persons of the same sex. There can be no doubt, however, that if they had, they would have said the same thing. After all, they were discussing “marriage,” a gendered term whose meaning was unambiguous and known to all. It meant, as Black-stone said, the relationship between “husband and wife,” Pet.Br.33, also gendered terms whose meanings were unambiguous and known to all. The idea of a“same-sex marriage” was, literally, contradictio interminis to these authorities, and they would have thought it no more necessary to say that such a marriage is not possible than to say that a female husband or male wife is not possible."
Thanks to AKPilot, for the link to that...
So....Um....Chongo, Loving V Virginia does not cover you, here..