Talk:Loving v. Virginia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section header (2006)

The first external link appears not to be functioning. Anyone have an update for it or another site containing the entire text of the court case? (posted by 198.236.216.253)

I'm moving the aforementioned link here --

• Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (full text with links to cited material)

-- for safekeeping, and replacing it with this one: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html because I was unable to find the referenced material at the other link. --Woozle 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are their names ("Loving") coincidence or were they especially selected?

Coincidence, of course. It is funny, though. --Coolcaesar 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Text font

The style of font that the page is currently written in is very difficult to read. I would suggest a change to the fonts commonly used on the other pages. KMB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.23.70 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

duh

It helped open up the south with their knowledge DUH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.44.124 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard and Mildred Loving

She just died.[1] Should she have her own article or just a mention of the death here?--T. Anthony (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Mildred Loving died. The Lovings were an inspiration to a lot of people, and they had a perfect name.

Per WP:BIO1E, she probably isn't notable enough to warrant her own article. Somebody's already added to this article the fact that she died. If obituaries provide more details about her life, maybe somebody should add more biographical facts to this article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard and Mildred Loving were brave people who quietly overturned 'racial purity' laws through the Supreme Court. Because they were low profile and shunned interviews does not make them any less worthy of Wikipedia attention. Even the New York Times gave Mildred yet another article upon her death.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more a matter that their notabilitity is so tied up in this case there might be nothing to say as a separate article. Although I don't know enough to say if that's true and I sort-of like the idea of them having their own article. However in the majority of cases it's been ruled that they be merged if they lack separate notability. We have no articles on Spottswood Bolling (Bolling v. Sharpe), Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger), Walter Barnette (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) or several others. However we do have articles on Oliver L. Brown (Brown v. Board of Education) and Lloyd L. Gaines (Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada) even though they're notability seems mostly dependent on the case. However in both cases they had buildings named in their honor or received some honor. If Mr. and/or Mrs. Loving received honors, or significant posthumous honors, they might merit an independent article.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move for Mildred Loving article

Just a heads up. I have requested that the Mildred Loving article be renamed to Mildred and Richard Loving. For anybody who might be interested in expressing an opinion one way or the other on this proposed move, the discussion is here: Talk:Mildred Loving#Requested Move

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvement to GA/FA

I'm interested in improving this article to GA and eventually FA. I have no experience writing or interpreting case law, but I do have experience with writing FAs. I'm looking for someone with legal experience to make sure the prose is legally accurate. Anyone interested, or have ideas of editors who could assit? --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Precedent?

"Ignoring United States Supreme Court precedent, Carrico cited as authority the Virginia Supreme Court's own decision in Naim v. Naim (1955), and also argued that the case at hand was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because both the white and the non-white spouse were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation, an argument similar to that made by the United States Supreme Court in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama."

This passage appears to contradict itself. If, as the intro says, Loving v. Virginia overturned Pace v. Alabama, then far from ignoring Supreme Court precedent Carrico applied it (together with Virginia law, which is a common practice). What's needed here is a law review article discussing the whole pre-Supreme Court history of the case. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Restriction" vs. illegality

The California proposition did not merely restrict the right to marry, it made such "marriages" illegal. Nagoruney, Adam (February 7, 2012). "Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |acceessdate= ignored (help). Restriction is too benign a term; it is confusing to the reader. The 9th Circuit relied upon the effect of the legislation in striking this down under Equal Protection analysis. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing, but you need to discuss first to reach WP:CONSENSUS (note also WP:3RR.) Comments to follow. AV3000 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The cited article does not use the term "illegal". The long-standing use of "restrict" is a succinct way to state that the marriages had been allowed, but were no longer permitted. (By the way, your repeated addition included the misstatement that the proposition "barred marriage to opposite-sex couples".) AV3000 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've set forth my position. Edit this as you will. You are right about the existence of the word "illegal", but you are not right about its meaning or the meaning of the 9th CCA opinion. You can choose to mislead (I assume unintentionally WP:AGF, but papering over this crack is misleading), or you can call it for what it is. These amendments in the states that adopted them were intended to disrupt "marriages" that were not between a man and a woman. This was done because under the Full faith and credit clause, each State is the arbiter of the validity of marriages performed within is own borders. Thus, the attempt to pass the defense of marriage act. This is way beyond "restriction". It is essentially a "Bill of attainder" based on sexual orientation.

We are all bound by WP:3RR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Read please. Note the final paragraph on pages 79-80. "Perry v. Brown Case No. 10-66696" (pdf). 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. February 7, 2012. Retrieved February 8, 2012. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Background section

"Months before the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia the Roman Catholic Church joined the movement, supporting interracial couples in their struggle for recognition of their right to marriage.[citation needed]"

Can we please either get a reference for the above or delete it from the article? I'm unaware of any official recognition of interracial marriages by the RCC prior to this court decision. However I don't wish to remove it if someone else has a citation.24.176.236.116 (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I propose to merge Mildred and Richard Loving with this article. In addition to WP:BIO1E (the people are known only for their involvement with the case), the articles overlap substantially: this one contains biographical elements, and the other one is mostly about the case. This is redundant.  Sandstein  19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur. I've almost pulled the trigger and started the discussion myself. Classic where the merger will allow a full bio (probably split into "plaintiffs before" and life after"), but the cases (1E, not US Supreme Court) are argued so poorly I didn't act.Novangelis (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a reasonable proposal. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'll try doing the merger later today.  Sandstein  09:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Future Implications section

I rewrote this section by cutting a few lines out and moving the paragraphs around, to make it read better, and to be more neutral - previously, most of it was supporting the 'pro-gay-marriage' interpretation. It still needs references that support the alternate interpretation. Terraxos 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The section saying that some activists believe Loving v. Virginia will eventually justify same sex marriage seems problematic to me. It reads as if the pro-same sex marriage activists are making this argument, yet the quote given is from an activist against same-sex marriage. This seems deceptive and/or confusing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this section significantly. The previous cite from a brief no long has application as the brief was rejected by the New York Court of Appeals. Instead I added excerpts from the actual decision that the Court made, as THAT is the binding law, not the brief. Ghostmonkey57 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Removed the section on interracial adoption. This is not a comment on the quality of the material, just the fact that it lacked any obvious connection to this case or the legal issues surrounding it. Pigsfly33 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The intent of the Racial Integrity Act was about preventing mixed race offspring (such as myself) and preventing marriages that would produce mixed raced offspring "polluting" the races (such as mine). Loving 1967 is a shaky basis for same-sex marriage, especially given that a same-sex couple told me marriage was a breeder thing. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so since ONE gay couple told YOU (original research) that they (one couple) consider marriage to be for straight people, this in your mind makes Loving an "especially shaky basis" for marriage equality?! What is it about giving gay people equality that makes people say such embarrassingly silly things, both in Wikipedia and in general? 70.126.98.155 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

His opinion that it's a shaky justification is no more or less valid than yours that it is not; however, unless either of you have noted expertise on the matter and have been published commenting on it, BOTH of your opinions are OR. Also, assume good faith and don't make personal attacks. 2601:1:C100:2C90:59A8:48CB:D6BC:A8A4 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are Jetter and Loving notable in their own rights?

It seems that the articles for Mildred Jeter and Richard Perry Loving were both pointing back to this article, and an anonymous user at 195.73.22.130 correctly removed the wikilinks. That made me wonder if these two people are notable enough aside from this case to merit their own articles and, if so, would there be enough of note to create something more than just a stub that points back to here? TechBear (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not; there's not much about either them that are especially notable outside of this case, as Wikipedia seems to define notability. Were it not for this case most people would have never heard of them. 2601:1:C100:2C90:59A8:48CB:D6BC:A8A4 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Precedent for Same-sex Marriage

Prior to 2010 Loving was casually mentioned, but was not held as precedent as there was no federal court case involving same-sex marriage. Perry was the first. And in the last year in a half starting with Kitchen v. Herbet there have been over 20+ federal cases citing Loving as precedent overruling same-sex marriage bans. It makes no sense to only mention the first few. And to list every court case from the last year and a half would be too much for this article.

Also, the state court case from New York is not pertinent because state courts are not bound by federal precedent, they are bound by their state constitution. Gabe (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree in full with your analysis with your first paragraph but need to point out that your second paragraph is wrong. State courts are always bound by the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of federal law, including federal constitutional law. They are not bound by decisions of the intermediate courts of appeals or the district courts on federal issues. Because Loving is a U.S. Supreme Court case, it was thus necessary for the New York Court of Appeals to explain why the court felt it did not apply in that situation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

State courts are separate from federal courts. Hence why Baker v. Nelson has not prevented state courts legalizing same-sex marriage over the years, but it did stop the federal courts until Windsor. The states can take the reasoning of the US Supreme Court and analogize that if they want, but they are not bound by it unless it is the same exact issue. And same-sex marriage is not the exact same as interracial marriage, just being used as analogies. Hope that clarifies. Gabe (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Afraid that's not quite right. To use your example: state courts were prevented by Baker from deciding that SSM bans violated the U.S. Constitution. The state courts (in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, Colorado) that struck down state marriage bans did so on the basis of their state constitutions. As the commenter above put it (I'll add italics): "State courts are always bound by the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of federal law, including federal constitutional law."

As for the NY case, it's possible to say Loving is about race and the NY case (Hernandez v. Robles) is about sexual orientation, but others look at the two and say they are both about the fundamental right to marry. The NY court had to explain that it was taking the former position and saw them as different (race v. sexual orientation) not identical. (And with that argument, of course, they put themselves on the wrong side of history.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bmclaughlin9 and Coolcaesar. Mentioning Hernandez v. Robles is relevant because it did address the Loving case even though it didn't accept it as precedent. More importantly, though, sweeping assertions such as "all federal lawsuits suing for same-sex marriage rights have cited Loving as major precedent referring to the right to marry" need, per WP:BURDEN, be referenced with a source if you want to keep them in. That may well be true, and if so it is important to add, but then there should be a law review article or newspaper article saying so.  Sandstein  20:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the state courts legalized SSM through their state constitution, violating different parts of their constitution (each state obviously did it differently since all have different constitutions). So I have to ask, and not facetiously, why just choose the NY State case? Why not Washington, Maryland, Indiana, Georgia etc. on state courts that rejected the Loving analogy? At this point with such as massive number of lawsuits I feel like mentioning specific cases, especially one that failed, doesn't make much sense. Gabe (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We use these cases because they are the ones we currently have sources for. If there are others, we can mention them too if there are (preferably secondary) sources covering them. Also, we don't cover this issue in terms of failure or success, because we're writing from a neutral point of view: we're tracking the reception of Loving in SSM jurisprudence, and it is interesting to be able to discern the point in time at which courts began accepting it as precedent.  Sandstein  06:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You can find the entire ruling of any court case openly either on Wikipedia or other places on the internet. I assure you every case in the last year in a half has hugely used Loving as precedent. Not just the few mentioned here. You are talking dozens of cases since mid-2013. Kitchens, Bishop, DeLeon, Latta, Baskin... etc etc. The people who added those early cases, the ones in the Virginia and Arkansas, were doing it when only a few SSM cases were announced and no one foresaw the number we had in 2014. They are of no greater value than the others. If you want to be neutral than you need to not choose only a few select cases as significant. If any case should be used it should be the four pending in front of the Supreme Court now. I am being neutral, why I propose not to cherry pick a few cases. I will leave New York as that was an early case, but the others have no value over the 30 sum cases from 2014. Before you reverse, please explain why the few cases here from 2013 should be mentioned while the others are not. Keep in mind you are talking about 30 cases from 2014. Gabe (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible Solution What could be done to reflect recent events and Loving as precedent is is rather than mention all court cases, is to mention the Circuit Court of Appeals cases and their rulings. State that the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits have all ruled with Loving as precedent that SSM bans are unconstitutional Those are significant cases. And then follow up by mentioning the 6th circuit was the only one to reject the analogy, other than the dissenter. I find that to be very direct, offers the best overview, and reflects the influence and precedent value of Loving in the SSM cases. Gabe (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but then please go ahead and do so - and cite these cases! - instead of just removing information. As it stands, the article has no information at all about Loving now being accepted as precedent, which is problematic.  Sandstein  14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I do feel that to be the most appropriate. No way we could decide on over 30 individual cases. I will outline how the four circuit court of appeals agreed, and the one that did not (6th circuit) and how they both analogized Loving. Will be easy on citation, Loving is discussed in all the rulings. Glad we will not have edit war. Gabe (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical of this approach. See how we handled this: Baker_v._Nelson#Application_of_the_Baker_precedent, starting from "On recent years..." Sure it's long, but it tells the story. It replaced and long, undigested this of cases.

Doing this right requires digesting the information and developing a presentation, not an arbitrary selection of cases. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. My original point which I think you nailed is that the sections needs to not present an arbitrary list of cases. That was my original issue with the presentation. It had court cases that seemed more random if anything, of no higher value than most other SSM cases. I attempted to add a short information on how the court of appeals have addressed the issue. And perhaps until the SCOTUS officially rules on SSM and it chooses to cite Loving or not it is hard to judge what to put in this article. But let's please not allow the cases to be arbitrary and not of appropriate weight/value to this section. Please edit as you feel appropriate. Gabe (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't defend the earlier versions, but your selection of cases doesn't tell the story. We shouldn't be afraid to make some judgements about which cases are more significant than others (like Hernandez & Robicheaux, for example, and probably Bostic if only for its opening with a long quote from Mildred Loving). There's a history here, but you wouldn't know that from what's left now.

The greater problem with what you've done is the notion that Loving either is or is not a precedent. It's not Tick the box Yes or No, precedent or not a precedent. The plaintiffs' argument runs: Loving and several other cases (worth mentioning here) demonstrate that SCOTUS has adopted the view that "marriage is a fundamental right" (a critical phrase that needs to be mentioned). If that is true, then the courts need to review state bans against a stricter standard of review reserved for fundamental rights. Defendants argue: Loving was all about race, based on the 14th amendment which was all about race when adopted, and can't be stretched to cover other forms of discrimination that lack the history of race-based discrimination. And even if Loving and other cases establish a fundamental right to marry, SSM is so different from marriage that it's an entirely different right, not the right at issue in Loving. Just saying which courts of appeals took Loving as a precedent (yes/no) misrepresents what these courts have done. Summarizing the views of these courts isn't hard. Pick one on each side and do it. Alternatively, ignore the courts of appeals and just pick briefs from a typical case (Mississippi?) and show how the two sides argued about what Loving does or doesn't mean for an SSM case. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I know there is not a simple yes or no for any case, and the overall discussion. Until the SCOTUS officially cites Loving to reject the analogy, or to follow it as stare decisis, there is no direct answer. Right now there is only conclusions by the lower courts, and they have not been in 100% agreement of course. I just object to an arbitrary selection of cases as it was before, but I do not think the section will be reverted to that situation. I trust this will be addressed appropriately and I will not edit further. Gabe (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Implications of the decision

The statement, "In the 2010 census, 10% of opposite-sex married couples had partners of a different race," is not factually correct. The source given shows that 6.9% of householders are of a different race than their spouse, but that is based on households. The 2010 Census actually showed that only 4.1% of married couples had partners of a different race. The inaccurate statement is based on the summary rather than the actual data, but the summary says that 10% of opposite-sex married couples were "interracial or interethnic." The chart shows that the number is actually 9.5%, and that would include a "white non-Hispanic" married to a "white Hispanic," &c.76.107.33.178 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

After a little study of the Excel table which you linked, I found that you are right about the 4.1 figure (by adding all combinations under the heading 'RACE DIFFERENCE/4' which do no start with the word 'Both'). However, the acutal PDF report Households and Families: 2010 which is linked from the press release, mentions a higher figure of 'almost 7%' in the text on page 17 and of 6.9% in the table on page 18. I have not yet found an explanation for the difference. A partial reason can the definition of an interracial couple: "If either spouse or partner was not in the same single race as the other spouse or partner, or if at least one spouse or partner was in a multiple-race group, then the couple was classified as an interracial couple." This means that in the Excel table, the part of the group 'Both Other alone or any combination' falls under this definition. However adding the figure for this group (0.9%) to the 4.1 figure amounts to 5.0% only. So what can explain the remaining difference? Bever (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The difference seems to be their use of married householders. They reach "10%" (9.5%) by including both interracial and interethnic married householders, which would count a "white non-Hispanic/white Hispanic" couple the same as an interracial couple. They get "almost 7%" (6.9%) by looking at interracial householders. The figure of 4.1% is of all married couples, not just householders.76.107.33.178 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

References

New Mexico

The map shows that New Mexico repealed anti-miscegenation laws prior to 1888. New Mexico was not a state yet. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4E01:8F9E:E83D:9903:7B47:F207 (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Implications

If I recall correctly, at least one court found that the precedent of Loving invalidated one key argument against same-sex marriage; that it wasn't discrimination because straight people couldn't marry someone of the same sex either. Loving rejected a similar argument that miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because white people couldn't marry black people just the same as the reverse. I just can't remember where I read that. --ShorinBJ (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

General notes (2017)

Information in the lead section of this article and in the background are not cited at all.There are a lot of facts within the page that require a citation. It might be helpful to add a ‘citation needed’ template to such phrases one may come across when editing the page, instead of leaving them be. Will try to put a few in to attract others to cite.

Additionally, the information in the lead section can be shortened or deleted, since the section “criminal proceedings” covers a lot of the same information. Will attempt to fix this, but feel free to revert or change as well.

Editing to the organization at the beginning of the article might provide clarity as well.

Josssoto (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. This information is therefore not redundant.  Sandstein  05:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Leaving this info I cut out here for safe keeping, even though it is referenced in later sections on the page:

....which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored".

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, overruling Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of several songs and three movies, including the acclaimed 2016 film Loving. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

Josssoto (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I added it back. Lead content does not need footnotes if it is referenced later on.  Sandstein  05:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood, I just thought that it was rather extensive. Outside of that, I think that the organization of the article should be reevaluated. I'd like your opinion on merging the sections 'Background' and 'Plaintiffs' to be under just 'Background' with subheadings dividing the information. Or something of the sort. The two sections on their own are rather disproportionate to the other sections in the article, and both are technically background to the case. Josssoto (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea.  Sandstein  09:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

vandalism problem

I see that the Loving page has been vandalized (nothing too serious, just annoying) more than once in the last month or so. I am not an expert Wikipedia editor, but have contributed to this page (and others) to clarify the legal history and issues, to include information about the lawyers who argued the case, to add legal web references, etc., based on my own expertise in constitutional law and interest in the ACLU's significant cases. Is it becoming necessary or appropriate to restrict this page from general public editing in order to protect it from vandalism, or is the ability to revert unhelpful edits within a few hours sufficient?

PDGPA (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Mildred Loving Page

I'm seeing that there has been previous discussion about whether or not Mildred Loving warrants her own page and want to argue that she does. The Loving v. Virginia page gives very little biographical information on the Lovings, who were complete people outside of the court case. As their Civil Rights contributions were notable, they deserve more recognition. However, adding in the adequate amount of biographical info would clutter up the Loving page, so it would be easier and more streamlined to have a separate page. Finally, as Mildred Loving lived until 2008, long after the case and Richard died, her own page would be able to explore her life beyond Loving. Madjones515 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

The main problem is WP:BIO1E. Are there reliable sources covering Mildred Loving in any depth without relation to the case? Sandstein 22:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia once had a biographical article about Mildred and Richard Loving. It largely duplicated this article was merged into it in December 2012. See the discussion above. This is the last version before the merger. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a page about her/her and Richard could include more biographical information both before and after Loving v Virginia as well as highlight her legacy, specifically her impact on the fight for marriage equality. Would this warrant a page? If not, would it be appropriate to create a more robust biography section within this page and include more about Mildred's outlook on marriage equality? Madjones515 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Readability and Consistency

When I read following senctence "They were told the certificate was not valid in the Commonwealth." I wondered what was meant by "Commonwealth"! As a foreigner I immediately thought of the British Commonwealth, but that surely could not be, as this text is about the USA! Then I clicked through "Central Point" and from there to "Viriginia", where "Virginia" was also described as "Commonwealth of Virginia"! Why did the writer use "Commonwealth" instead of "Viriginia" in this sentence and not "Virginia" as was done in the previous sentence? That confuses the reader! Or at least use one consistent term through the complete text, ie "Commonwealth of Virginia" or "Virginia" not both! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed, thanks. Sandstein 11:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mildred Loving described as black

In the second paragraph, Mildred Loving is described incorrectly:

    "The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman,..."

This is a common misunderstanding.

As noted later in the article, Mildred was not black. She was biracial of African American and Native American ancestry. I would have corrected it, but cannot find any mechanism to edit this portion of the report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.176.124 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You can edit the lead by clicking on the word 'Edit' at the top of the page (next to the words Read and View History), instead of the word Edit next to a section heading. When you are registered, you can also have a separate link for editing the lead section alone.

I am not going to do this edit on your behalf because I do not know what is the appropriate American name for a woman of such mixed descent (I would say coloured, but that may not be political correct – my excuse is that I'm not a native speaker). Bever (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This issue was reopened this week, when I (Falcor84) made an edit to change Mildred's description to colored, which was then reverted by Malik Shabazz reasoning that "colored" was a euphemism for "Negro" at that time and hence is no more accurate while considered offensive by some. We had a short discussion on Malik Shabazz's talk page and I now agree with that view.

So given that the both of us agree that "black" is inaccurate while "colored" is not good either, we need to come up with a better term. Malik Shabazz suggests "woman of color", which sounds fine to me. Would anyone object or have a better suggestion? "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that no objections were raised here in over a week, I went ahead and made the change now. "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

My issue with the article text is regarding her race/ethnicity is this: it says that she "clearly presented herself as black during the trial..." Without any further context or explanation. First, that is an odd choice of language..how does one "clearpy present themself as black"? I would assume that if she actually *said* "I'm black," the text would say so, especially since she later said that she is not black.

My speculation regarding this, is that she may have described herself as "coloured," which at that time typically meant "black," but *can* mean simply "not white." If that was indeed what she said, I think it a leap to draw the conclusion that she was deliberately trying to present herself as black...at the very least, it should be assumed that she wasn't (whether she was or not cannot ever be known). Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Key precedents

Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583) was a key precedent because the Supreme Court in that 1883 case ruled that anti-miscegenation laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that because both spouses from different races were punished equally for interracial marriage, this constituted equality before the law. Since I am no expert in law, I request someone who is to start an article on this case. I have also requested this new article at the SCOTUS project page.

Another key case was McLaughlin v. Florida (379 U.S. 184) in 1964, where the Warren court ruled that Florida's ban on interracial cohabitation (the court chose at that time not to rule on interracial marriage) violated the Fourteenth amendment.

Please help! Fairlane75 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "key precedent." Pace v. Alabama was a previous decision on the topic, but it was directly overturned by Loving v. Virginia, so its "precedent" was rejected. I don't know what the proper terminology for this is...whether past decisions that are rejected as errors are still referred to as precedent or not.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

I've taken the liberty of adding a backlink to the recent Perry case in California where similar restrictions on who you can marry were struck down. The trial judge, Vaughn Walker, delivered an extensive ruling that reviewed, in the federal context as well as the Californian, the relevant history of marriage in the United States and other common law jurisdictions. This splendidly named case features prominently in that magisterial review. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. In fact, maybe it is worth adding a couple of sentences refarding Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the 'Future implications' section. However, looking at that section, I see two overly long quotes from another court opinion there. These quotes really are excessively long, and need to be considerably shortened. The second quote in particular is over 3000 characters long - that really is excessive. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the second of the two quotes from 'Hernandez v. Robles' and added a sentence regarding Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Still, the section 'Future implications' needs further work in terms of balance, and I hope that somebody knowledgeable in judicial matters can take a crack at it. Nsk92 (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This case is obviously an emotional touchstone for many people involved in the debate over marriage equality, a fact that Mrs. Loving herself recognised and notably encourages in her final address. I don't like the title of the section, though. Future implications will be decided in the future, but we can say much about what was and what is. The bulk of that section would make perfect sense if only it had a title that referred to established facts rather than speculations about what might happen in the future. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the title - 'Future implications' is pretty bad. Maybe 'Implications for subsequent cases'? Or maybe 'Further impact'? Nsk92 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about, probably something like 'Later impact' or 'Further impact' is better since the Loving v. Virginia case plays a role in the current broad public debate regarding gay marriage, and not just in the recent court rulings. Nsk92 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary significance, perhaps. We must avoid the word or idea "future" because, in human affairs at least, there is no way of predicting the future. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true: under common law legal systems, past decisions are binding on future decisions. Badly flawed past decisions can be rejected, and not every judge will be respectful of precedent as they are supposed to, but these are exceptions of the system rather than the rule. Because of the binding nature of precedent in common law countries, future decisions can be predicted to a certain degree. Only in rare cases that are completely novel and have never been brought before the court is the future decision truly unpredictable.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)