Happy Loving Day : Dispatches from the Creation Wars

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Balko's Internet Gambling Testimony | Main | Orthodox Jewish Nuts Curse Pride Parade »

Happy Loving Day

Posted on: June 12, 2007 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

I didn't know about this project until I read about it on Pam's House Blend, but I'm all for it: Happy Loving Day. Today is the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v Virginia, the landmark decision that overturned state laws against interracial marriage. It was a rare unanimous ruling on what was, at the time, still a very hot social issue. There is going to be a conference in Chicago next weekend on the case. I am still waiting for a conservative originalist to either defend the decision on originalist grounds (without completely contradicting their arguments against similar rulings in other case) or tell us why it was wrongly decided. No one has ever accepted that challenge.

Comments

I actually used Loving v. Virginia as an example in a discussion with a coworker on gay marriage (which he opposed). I pointed out that under the pre-Loving laws, his marriage would have been illegal in many states. He argued that it was completely different, as opposition to gay marriage was based on religious beliefs, whereas opposition to mixed-race marriages was simply based on bigotry. When I pointed out the patently religious arguments used by the Virginia judge in arguing for the mixed marriage ban, he was pretty surprised. I don't know for sure that he changed his position, but it definitely did make him pause and think.

Happy Loving Day, from someone in a triracial marriage

Posted by: MJ Memphis | June 12, 2007 9:52 AM

Those darned activist judges! Have they no shame in their promotion of the liberal agenda?

Posted by: CHV | June 12, 2007 10:02 AM

I am still waiting for a conservative originalist to either defend the decision on originalist grounds (without completely contradicting their arguments against similar rulings in other case) or tell us why it was wrongly decided. No one has ever accepted that challenge.

Funny, it should be pretty easy. Virginia's main defense was that the framers of the 14th amendment didn't intend for it to overturn anti-miscegenation laws, so the current court shouldn't find that it does. You'd think an originalist would be all over that.

Ah, well. Happy Loving Day to all!

Posted by: Skemono | June 12, 2007 12:45 PM

Skemono wrote:

Virginia's main defense was that the framers of the 14th amendment didn't intend for it to overturn anti-miscegenation laws, so the current court shouldn't find that it does. You'd think an originalist would be all over that.

Exactly. Every single argument they make against cases that protect unenumerated rights applies far better to Loving. From a conservative originalist perspective, Loving simply must be a bad decision. But you can't find anyone who will actually say that because they don't want to argue against such a clearly correct decision. To do so would be to admit that conservative originalism leads to absurd results. Thus, the dead silence when I bring it up.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 12, 2007 1:18 PM

They are also amazingly quiet when you point out that contemporary polls would have shown a majority against the decision, yet it somehow failed to destroy the universe; societal attitudes eventually caught up. Not that I see any parallels to more recent rulings (*cough* Goodridge *cough*) or anything.

Posted by: Christopher Davis | June 12, 2007 3:26 PM

They are also amazingly quiet when you point out that contemporary polls would have shown a majority against the decision, yet it somehow failed to destroy the universe; societal attitudes eventually caught up.

Indeed!

Posted by: Skemono | June 12, 2007 8:11 PM