Talk:Loving v. Virginia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

The first external link appears not to be functioning. Anyone have an update for it or another site containing the entire text of the court case? (posted by 198.236.216.253)

I'm moving the aforementioned link here --

-- for safekeeping, and replacing it with this one: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html because I was unable to find the referenced material at the other link. --Woozle 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Are their names ("Loving") coincidence or were they especially selected?

Coincidence, of course. It is funny, though. --Coolcaesar 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Text font

The style of font that the page is currently written in is very difficult to read. I would suggest a change to the fonts commonly used on the other pages. KMB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.23.70 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Future Implications section

I rewrote this section by cutting a few lines out and moving the paragraphs around, to make it read better, and to be more neutral - previously, most of it was supporting the 'pro-gay-marriage' interpretation. It still needs references that support the alternate interpretation. Terraxos 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


I rewrote this section significantly. The previous cite from a brief no long has application as the brief was rejected by the New York Court of Appeals. Instead I added excerpts from the actual decision that the Court made, as THAT is the binding law, not the brief. Ghostmonkey57 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


Removed the section on interracial adoption. This is not a comment on the quality of the material, just the fact that it lacked any obvious connection to this case or the legal issues surrounding it. Pigsfly33 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Key precedents

Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583) was a key precedent because the Supreme Court in that 1883 case ruled that anti-miscegenation laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that because both spouses from different races were punished equally for interracial marriage, this constituted equality before the law. Since I am no expert in law, I request someone who is to start an article on this case. I have also requested this new article at the SCOTUS project page.

Another key case was McLaughlin v. Florida (379 U.S. 184) in 1964, where the Warren court ruled that Florida's ban on interracial cohabitation (the court chose at that time not to rule on interracial marriage) violated the Fourteenth amendment.

Please help! Fairlane75 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Jetter and Loving notable in their own rights?

It seems that the articles for Mildred Jeter and Richard Perry Loving were both pointing back to this article, and an anonymous user at 195.73.22.130 correctly removed the wikilinks. That made me wonder if these two people are notable enough aside from this case to merit their own articles and, if so, would there be enough of note to create something more than just a stub that points back to here? TechBear (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] duh

it helped open up the south with their knowledge DUH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.44.124 (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard and Mildred Loving

She just died.[1] Should she have her own article or just a mention of the death here?--T. Anthony (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Mildred Loving died. The Lovings were an inspiration to a lot of people, and they had a perfect name.
Per WP:BIO1E, she probably isn't notable enough to warrant her own article. Somebody's already added to this article the fact that she died. If obituaries provide more details about her life, maybe somebody should add more biographical facts to this article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Richard and Mildred Loving were brave people who quietly overturned 'racial purity' laws through the Supreme Court. Because they were low profile and shunned interviews does not make them any less worthy of Wikipedia attention. Even the New York Times gave Mildred yet another article upon her death.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's more a matter that their notabilitity is so tied up in this case there might be nothing to say as a separate article. Although I don't know enough to say if that's true and I sort-of like the idea of them having their own article. However in the majority of cases it's been ruled that they be merged if they lack separate notability. We have no articles on Spottswood Bolling (Bolling v. Sharpe), Barbara Grutter (Grutter v. Bollinger), Walter Barnette (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) or several others. However we do have articles on Oliver L. Brown (Brown v. Board of Education) and Lloyd L. Gaines (Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada) even though they're notability seems mostly dependent on the case. However in both cases they had buildings named in their honor or received some honor. If Mr. and/or Mrs. Loving received honors, or significant posthumous honors, they might merit an independent article.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)