Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not lass than one nor more than five years.
|
Putting aside whether there's a difference, for purposes of constitutional analysis between a criminal statute and the extension of certain benefits, which I think there is not, your recitation of this law comes without any explanation of how there's a distinction.
First, let's turn the current law into a civil statute. It would read something like:
Marriage:
Any man who wishes to marry any woman and any woman who wished to marry a man shall make application at a designated place [and pay a fee, take blood tests, etc.]. No man shall be permitted to marry a woman. And no woman shall be permitted to marry a man.
Now, take that statute, and instead substitute racial terms.
Any black person who wishes to marry another black person and any white person who wishes to marry another white person shall make application at a designated place [and pay a fee, take blood tests, etc.]. No black person shall be permitted to marry a white person. And no white person shall be permitted to marry a black person.
Tell me how the race-based statute can be defended under Loving, or, more generally, current EPC jurisprudence. If it cannot, tell me why the first statute (re men/women) survives.
