|
1. In interpreting the Constitution
the Court must look to the intent
of those who framed it and passed
its amendments. An examination
of the history of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the legislative
records during the time of its
passage yields the conclusion
that members of Congress did
not support interracial marriage.
2. This is a question not
for the courts but for the legislature
to determine. If the Virginia
legislature is in accord with
the Lovings that interracial
marriage should be legalized,
it will pass a statute indicating
as much. It is unwise for the
judicial branch to interfere
with this process.
3. If a black person is denied
the right to marry a white person,
a white person is similarly
denied the right to marry a
black person. Therefore the
Virginia statute does not violate
the equal protection clause,
because it places restrictions
on both groups equally, and
punishes both groups in the
same manner when they violate
the statute.
|
1. The legislative history of
the Fourteenth Amendment does
not indicate that it is not
applicable to anti-miscegenation
laws. The amendment was intended
to change with the times. It
is not possible to read the
minds of those who passed the
Fourteenth Amendment, and even
if it were, the views Virginia
has purported to derive from
the legislature have since been
ruled unconstitutional.
2. The Virginia anti-miscegenation
laws were passed during a period
when racist attitudes were prevalent.
They are relics of slavery and
cause immeasurable social harm.
3. The Virginia anti-miscegenation
laws are racially discriminatory
and deny appellants equal protection
of the laws. The Lovings' right
to marry is not protected in
the same way as the right of
other couples. This violates
the equal protection clause
and should be held unconstitutional.
|
