Loving v. Virginia Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Loving v. Virginia | 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
On a hot summer night in 1958, law enforcement burst into the bedroom of Mildred and Richard Loving, and placed them under arrest. The Lovings had not gone on a crime spree, but they were public enemies in the eyes of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were thrown in jail for getting married-an act prohibited in Virginia, all because the Lovings didn’t share the same skin color. The legal battle that followed culminated in the United States Supreme Court decision of Loving versus Virginia, which would forever cast the Lovings among the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
I don't really believe in fate but the fact they were called the Lovings is so fitting. The courts banned Loving. Great videos!
On a related note, the 'Obergefell v. Hodges' case (which legalized same-sex marriage) could have been called 'Love v. Beshear' (but the cases were consolidated differently).
Thought the same thing
I just love that their names are LOVING ❤
can you believe this actually occurred only 50 years ago
BLACK.. Brown.. melon skin tones still have struggles against racism.
Be the different you wish to see in the world...
Mahatna Ghandi
And it only occured 26 years before I was born: to a white father and a black mother
I was just telling my family this as we were all having lunch together!!!!!
It was a throwback to slavery.
I know right...
Atha Sorrells and Robert Painter, an interracial couple fought the state of Virginia in 1925 to obtain a marriage license and won. That was 42 years before Loving v. Virginia.
Yeah, but the Loving v Virginia ended the ban on interracial couples for the whole country
May Richard s d Mildred’s memory be a blessing
Anyone ever wonder how it would've went if Loving vs Virginia was a Black Man & his wife was White Woman??
Look up pace v alabama
Both 'Perez v. Sharp' (decided in 1948 by the Supreme Court of California) and 'McLaughlin v. Florida' (decided in 1964 - 3 years before 'Loving' - by the Supreme Court of the United States, though the case was about cohabitation and not marriage) involved a black man and a white woman. (Both the two cases were decided in favor of the couple, the first 4:3, the second unanimously.)
Black men don't marry anyhow. Just kidding.
It probably wouldn’t be unanimous but all anti-interracial marriage laws would be struck down regardless.
No
i gotta research and make a presentation on this topic, im procrastinating big time tho🙄
ayy.. I have a research paper on this case due in three hours ;-;
I am now but its over due by alot
Thank you SO MUCH for this video!
For school?
Yep
@@nicolerosamond3964 also thats the voice from fnaf 5, 6, and security breach
Banished from Virginia what kind of garbage is this.
Unconstitutional as well. Too bad the question wasn't before the court too.
Ironic how Virginia's tourism and travel slogan is "Virginia is for Lovers".
That is how racist white people was and still is.
@@angelabradley9513 lmao ok 👌🏽 because the Chief Justice wasn’t white too right 😂
@@jam5533 EXACTLY what i was thinking
Why was Loving unanimous, but Obergefell was split 5-4?
Obergefell was split on the conservative side because of 3 reasons. One: the Constitution doesn't define what marriage is. State legislation does. Anthony Kennedy made the Court a super legislator with no accountability to the people with this decision, as they are our great moral arbiters.And honestly, I don't think the government should provide tax breaks to families that are married because it creates questions concerning gay couples that do the same things as them.
2nd: Gay association was already legalized through Lawrence v. Texas, which was a good decision, because the rights given to citizens through the 14th amendment say that the laws have to be equally applied to everyone in the population, otherwise its overt discrimination intending to go after a group. The Interracial ban had a specific purpose to target a select group of people, while others were left unperturbed. However, Obergefell didn't go after the criminality aspect of it. In the laws already on the books, there is no justification any decent lawyer can make for gay marriage.
The justification Kennedy used in his argument was that by having distinct differences, thats inherent discrimination and an attack on human "rights", by his logic. But human rights are ordained by God, they cannot be created out of thin air, like a "right" to a marriage license. "Rights" are liberties or freedoms. They aren't entitlements.
Rights are liberties for the government to protect and are freedoms for you to do that government cannot take away. 3rd is that by direct principle, this case can re define what marriage is. If marriage is just consent and love between two people, why isn't incest off the table
Fundamentally, I believe marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. I have no problem with gay people, I don't mind them one bit. For people to say that people hate gay marriage because of Levitcus or Sodom and Gomorrah is bad. But this case redefined marriage forever, which I don't like
Won’t let two different races marry but would allow grown men to marry children..
That still happens everyday in the Muslim world.
Based law
@@rospil15shut your bitch ass up it happens around the world in rural areas it is NOT a Muslim thing
It would be a great Roméo and Juliette movie.
It already is, it's called Loving.
@@wayanlantela8175 THANKS !!!!
It would be cool if they made Romeo and Juliet like this.
@@wayanlantela8175 There's also an older movie, 'Mr. and Mrs. Loving'. But it dramatized the events; and, according to Mrs. Loving, it wasn't very factually accurate.
well made
Can someone elaborate on justice stewart's concurring opinion?
He just noted that "It is simply
not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor" (referencing his concurring opinion from a previous case, McLaughlin v. Florida).
So if Prince Harry and Princess Meghan had visited Virginia.....?
More if Meghan's parents visited Virginia in the 60's.
Now I don't like my state
Everyone is trying to compare this to Roe v Wade now, when this was clearly in the constitution whereas abortion was shoehorned in.
“Shoehorned” you mean the right for a women to have liberty and autonomy over her body? Even if it isn’t in the constitution, it doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.
@@AlexB-th1zx A fetus is not a woman's body, I mean you must know that?
I can’t find interracial marriage in the constitution.
@@ranelgallardo7031 Marriage is a major part of Christianity "this now bond of my bone and flesh of my flesh" Freedom of religion.
@@jeffstarrunner1 Okay but not everyone is a Christian in this country.
damn...
let's fix that with a controlled shock
This case majorly helped springboard integration.Integration is the ultimate worst thing that ever happened.We are not made to coexist like that.We must face the truth for what it is.
Apartheid was an extension of slavery. The main goal was economic deprivation. If Europeans hated integration so much then they should not have colonized other peoples lands.
Horror of horrors! Two people fell in love and got married. Really, what's it to you? Interracial marriage - or same-sex marriage - doesn't harm anybody. It "neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket". So let people associate with whoever they want. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" - does that remind you of something?
Cope and seethe
Just think how much better the country would be if these laws were still in place, if people actually stuck with their own race.
Chris Liddick ew what the fuck
it wouldn’t be any better. the world is perfect the way it is. if they are in love, let them be in love .. def not ur place to say
@John Toas I bet you're some white liberal who lives with his parents. Ha ha you're a joke.
Fuck you racist
It's ironic how the people hating on this comment feel as if they have the moral high-ground, while at the same time telling someone that they should die for having a different opinion. What are you, nazis or something?