Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Defense gets pounded by Supreme Court Justices [View all]ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)67. Loving v. Virginia really should have settled this issue once and for all.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently
niyad
Mar 2013
#1
I keep trying to figure out how such braindead types manage to function at any level.
niyad
Mar 2013
#4
and the wedding industry will make a few more dollars, possibly creating jobs. wouldn't this be
niyad
Mar 2013
#6
if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently
AlbertCat
Mar 2013
#43
And as soon as their offspring attain majority their marriages should be disolved.
bluedigger
Mar 2013
#14
There should be fertility tests for both partners as part of the marriage application process as wel
AlbertCat
Mar 2013
#51
Excellent argument, but it would probably fly right over the mouth breather's heads.
sarge43
Mar 2013
#100
Could it be that the Supreme Court will once again lead the way on civil rights?
SoonerPride
Mar 2013
#11
They would have a hard time keeping you from marraige in OK then, when California loses.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#19
My feeling is that DOMA is dead for two reasons; the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving vs Virginia.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#87
Unfortunately, the courts often do seem to find a way to weasel out of tough spots...
BlueCheese
Mar 2013
#32
It was my belief that the USSC does not hear cases filed by those with no standing.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#66
an early happy 10th anniversary to a beautiful couple, and wishing you many, many more.
niyad
Mar 2013
#73
The Supreme Court really has a chance to make history here and do the right thing.
Nye Bevan
Mar 2013
#17
So...should everyone be tested for fertility before a marriage license is issued? Should
LoisB
Mar 2013
#20
welcome to DU--that is what one of my friends says--they have the right to be as miserable
niyad
Mar 2013
#74
This guy actually got a degree? That is the most asinine statement I've ever read.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#84
Even the procreation "logic" is better than whatever reasoning led Roberts to make that idiotic
NYC Liberal
Mar 2013
#85
Does that mean that people who can't, or choose not to, have children are barred from marriage?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2013
#71