The case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the U.S Supreme Court ruled on June 12 , 1967, to unanimously strike down the law against interracial marriage used in Virginia for decades, was a fundamental basis for reference on matters of rights of marriage. The petitioners Richard and Mildred Loving sought to have the law struck down because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Having been married in 1958 in Washington D.C., the couple found themselves in a legal battle with the state of Virginia after a return to the state. In 1966, the Virginia Supreme court had ruled in favor of the state in regulating interracial marriage. The state of Virginia argued that empirical studies have suggested interracial marriages resulted in families that suffered more pressure and problems than intra-marriages (Loving v. Virginia). The state put forward claims that prohibition of inter-racial marriage was on similar grounds as that of incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, and marriage for the mentally ill.
Lovings attorney, Hirschkop, pointed out that the law prohibiting interracial marriage was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and whose basis was purely racial. He argued that the law was formed in slavery to prevent African American slaves and former slaves from being culturally integrated into society. He also pointed out that inter-racial marriage that did not involve a white person was permissible in the state. However, the most compelling argument was the promise of equal protection as stipulated under the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids states from passing laws that deny citizens this promise. The Loving v. Virginia ruling has similar legal elements as Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right. Both these cases did not refer to the marriage's contextual surrounding and character but defined the right of marriage in a broad perspective (Manas, 2018). Each of the cases required adequate justification in prohibiting citizens' specific class from the right to marriage.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In both these cases, the U.S Supreme Court determined that government discrimination against individuals’ fundamental rights cannot be justified by the objective of respecting other people’s religious beliefs (Frank, 2017). This point was especially true since the arguments against same-sex marriage were advocated by reason of adherence to certain religious ideologies. Similarly, the Virginia law against inter-marriage stipulated religious notions of separation of races. Defending the ban on same-sex marriage simply as illegal and immoral could not be substantiated in the court in the same way declaring inter-racial marriage as ungodly could not be justified. By ascertaining that marriage was a fundamental right and no critical interests mandate discrimination by the state based on race or sexual orientation, there was no means of justifying the banning of marriage to inter-racial and same-sex couples (Ho, 2016). In both cases, the court determined that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were being violated. It is important to note that the 1967 landmark ruling in Loving v Virginia was a vital precursor in the 2015 court’s decision of Obergefell v. Hodges.
In the case of Lawrence v.state of Texas had prosecuted John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner after police found them engaging in consensual sexual activities in a private residence. The Supreme court ruled that Texas's statute making it illegal for same-sex intimate activities was a violation of the Fourteenth amendment (Georgetown Law Library, 2021). In his opinion, Justice Kennedy stated that the government had no authority to intervene in the engagement of free adults within the confines of their private residents. In addition, Justice Kennedy opined that Texas's law does not offer any justification to intervene in the lives of private people legitimately. The initial ruling of Bowers v. Hardwick, which gave states the right to prosecute individuals who engaged in same-sex activities on the argument that these rights were not protected, was subsequently overruled. The grounds to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick was argued on the basis of rights stated in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 that stipulated decisions regarding contraception, procreation, marriage, and education should be protected under the constitution.
Essentially, the ruling on Lawrence v. Texas made it difficult to argue against same-sex marriage on the rationale that same-sex intimacy is immoral and illegal. The court had already declared private consensual same-sex sexual conduct as rights to be protected in the Constitution (Georgetown Law Library, 2021). As Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent, the overruling of Bowers by the decision of Lawrence v. Texas eliminated the constitutional grounds that distinguished between homosexual and heterosexual marriage unions. Therefore, acknowledging marriage as a fundamental right should eliminate any discrimination against same-sex couples, which had been declared to be not illegal by Lawrence v. Texas. Protection of equality in the marriage of same-sex couples required first protecting against discrimination by the government of homosexual conduct.
In his opinion, Justice Kennedy explains why religious doctrine cannot be sufficient grounds to infringe on the rights of individuals protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. This opinion suggests that the protection of rights is not determined by the majority's wishes but on a legal and constitutional basis. This idea can be perceived as a further emphasis on the separation of the church and the state. In a system where the church and the state are separate, religious morality cannot guide state laws. Constitutional rights for all individuals must be afforded protection from moral, religious, and popular views (Ho, 2016). Marriage is one of these rights that must be constitutionally protected.
The journey towards achieving marriage equality has been long and full of events but many successes. As many scholars have observed, the Fourteenth Amendment has been crucial in achieving marriage rights. The Equal Protection and Due Process clauses determine individuals' right to be subjected to due process by the government as free people. The clauses also mandate that individuals’ rights should be protected equally regardless of their distinct attributes. The next important step was the Loving Supreme court ruling which establishes grounds for protection against discrimination by the state on marriage. Lawrence v. Texas was the other significant step protecting same-sex sexual activity from intervention by the government. Finally, Obergefell v. Hodges was a milestone achievement for marriage rights that sealed the constitutional notion of the legalization of same-sex marriage.
The issue of marriage equality has been a contentious one for hundreds of years. The milestone achieved in securing equal rights in marriage must be protected through vigilance. The right to marriage is about same-sex unions and the individual right to decide who to marry and whether to marry. Undoubtedly the issue will continue to solicit a lot of social tension due to the religious beliefs of those who oppose marriage equality. But the court should continue to guard individual rights in situations where competing rights occur. The right to freely associate and practice one's religion should in no way infringe on an individual's right to marry. The role of religion in our society is an important one, but the separation of religion from the state is a key pillar of democracy. Today, many interracial families have benefited from the landmark ruling of Loving v. Virginia, which has helped foster unity and tolerance. Same-sex couples have also gotten a chance to marry and raise families.
References
A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: Lawrence v. Texas . Georgetown Law Library. (2021, January 27). https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182203.
Frank, N. (2017, June 12). Marriage Equality's Debt to Loving v. Virginia . Columbia Law School. https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/marriage-equalitys-debt-loving-v-virginia.
Ho, J. A. (2016, June 27). Find out What it Means to Me: The Politics of Respect and Dignity in Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination . SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2801130.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) . Bill of Rights Institute. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/loving-v-virginia-1967.
Loving v. Virginia. Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395. Accessed March 15 2021.
Manas, K. (2018, March 21). The Legacy of Loving & The Future of Same-Sex Marriage . Syracuse Law Review. https://lawreview.syr.edu/the-legacy-of-loving-the-future-of-same-sex-marriage/.
Newbeck, C. P. (1691, April 3). Loving v. Virginia (1967) . Encyclopedia Virginia. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/loving-v-virginia-1967/#:~:text=In%20Loving%20v.,violation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment
