A closer analogy (than Brown), you are right. Loving's a great Warren Court case. But Marshall Harlan's the I's dissent in Plesst is hard to beat for eloquence, prescience, courage, simplicity, depth, and accuracy.
Btw my friebds Dave and Patsy Schweickart -- he's white, her's Filipino -- ciouldn't get married in Virginia pre-Loving; I think they had to go to D.C. to get hitched. Race mixing, eyyw, gross. jka
--- Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
> From: andie nachgeborenen
>
>
> OK, W, I will try to explain. Back in 1896, in
> Plessy
> v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld "seperate but
> equal" in public accommodations.
>
> -clip-
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> Perhaps another legally comparable situation:
>
> http://www.blackseek.com/bh/2001/113_Loving.htm
>
>
> Loving vs. Virginia
> A Controversial Court Case
> Mr. and Mrs. Richard P. Loving, she black and he
> white, in marrying in
> another state and returning to their home state of
> Virginia to live,
> challenged the anti miscegenation law of the state
> and won.
>
> The Loving vs. Virginia case in 1967 virtually
> nullified the anti
> miscegenation laws, most of which remain in Southern
> state constitutions and
> legal codes.
>
> The case evolved around a white man and a black
> woman, both of whom were
> residents of Virginia, who married in Washington,
> D.C. The state of Virginia
> indicted and convicted them of violating its laws
> against racial
> intermarriage, when the couple returned to Virginia
> and attempted to take up
> residence there, but released them when the couple
> agreed not to live in the
> state for 25 years.
>
> The Lovings, however, decided to challenge the
> agreement and the law. After
> their appeal was rejected by the Virginia courts,
> they appealed to the U.S.
> Supreme Court, which ruled the Virginia law was
> unconstitutional.
>
> Shortly thereafter, the federal district courts in
> other states which
> forbade intermarriages, were ordering local
> officials to issue marriage
> licenses to interracial couples applying for them.
>
>
> Check here daily for more Black History features.
> Black History Home
> <http://www.blackseek.com/bh/>
>
>
> Also, some dead people have more rights than gay
> people in the U.S. ?
>
>
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/11/1076388397691.html
> Woman marries dead boyfriend
> February 11, 2004
>
>
>
> Christelle Demichel, 35, has become both bride and
> widow after marrying
> her dead boyfriend at Nice City Hall on the French
> Riviera. Photo AFP
>
>
> A 35-year-old Frenchwoman became both bride and
> widow when she married her
> dead boyfriend, in an exchange of vows that required
> authorisation from the
> French President.
>
> The ceremony was performed at Nice City Hall on the
> French Riviera.
>
> The deceased groom, a former policeman identified as
> Eric, was not present
> at the ceremony. He was killed by a drunk driver in
> September 2002.
>
> Christelle Demichel told LCI television she was
> fully aware that "it could
> seem shocking to marry someone who is dead", but
> said that her fiance's
> absence from her life had not dimmed her feelings
> for him.
>
> According to French law, a marriage between a living
> person and a dead
> person can take place as long as preliminary civic
> formalities have been
> completed that show the couple had planned to marry.
> Before the ceremony can
> take place, it must be approved by the French
> President.
>
> AP
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html