Insight To Chaos

Over the last few years, this issue has consistently wound me into an almost fanatical tirade over the absolute preposterousness of the very nature of the argument itself.  The idea that issues like this even exist in our current society make me all at once sad and cynical and…well, angry. Though, considering our world’s snail’s pace of a march toward basic, civil and human rights, this country’s leaps and bounds toward equality are merely baby steps toward that benevolent, albeit elusive, humanity we claim to have pioneered. (See? Ranting already.)

My prerogative is that the government does not belong in my personal life. I love my country, I pay my taxes, I do my civilian duty by serving wherever requested or required.  As such, under the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of my home state of California, I am afforded certain inalienable rights – this includes my right to privacy.  It could be argued here that as pornography relates to freedom of speech (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell), so should issues like marriage be related to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th amendment.  In fact, it does:

“Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Author: Bram

Relevant Facts: PL’s are an interracial couple who were prosecuted on the basis of a VA statute which prohibited such marriages, punishable by fine and or jail time.  State Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s sentence of one year suspended with suspension on the premise the couple never returned to VA.  This Court reverses.

Issue: Under constitutional law, is a state statute that prosecutes parties who are interracially married violate the Equal Protection Clause when the statute is argued to be equally discriminatory?

Holding: No.  The framers of the Constitution did not intend for a statute which discriminates, even if equally, against race; such a statute is considered a violation of the EPC.

Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: The Court said the law involved in the case-at-bar is basically a furthering of white supremacy.  The State says the Framers’ intent in such a law was if there is a discriminatory effect, that it apply equally to parties.  They continue to add that if EPC does not outlaw mixed marriage statutes b/c of their reliance on racial classification, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages..

The Court rejects these arguments.  When a statute is not race-based, the Court will ask if there is a rational basis for the statute; it may defer to the states, but if there is no rational basis it is rendered void.  The State contends the Framers of the Constitution or the Framers of the 14th Amendment didn’t intend to make mixed marriage statutes unconstitutional.  But the Court says the clear intent of the 14th was to eliminate all official state sources of violative racial discrimination in the States (originalist argument).

VA’s statute is discriminatory on its face, as it discriminates against generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.  After applying strict scrutiny to the statute, the Court tried to figure out if they were necessary to the carrying out of a state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was object of the 14th Amendment to eliminate.

However, there is no independent issue aside from racial discrimination which justifies this classification.  The fact that the statute involves white interracial marriages is proof of the supremacist intent of the States framers.  The Court consistently denied the constitutionality of such statutes.  Bottom line is that the statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.  The freedom to marry has long been recognized as an essential right that the Court will enforce.

Rule: The clear and central purpose of the 14th Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

The EPC demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny.” and, if they are to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the 14th Amendment to eliminate.

Important Dicta: N/A.”

(source: http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml)

and

“The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.”

(source:  http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection)

also

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.  (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.  In enforcing this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no court of this State may impose upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

…

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

SEC. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

(source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1)

Just despicable.  However…

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 3.  (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

(source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1)

Translation:  Do your part! Call your Congressmen and Senators!  We all have powers far beyond picket signs and Facebook events to fix this. It’s time to make it happen.  The well being of this country as a whole might do well if it could concentrate more on helping the health, wealth and prosperity of ALL of its citizens instead of continuing to hinder some of them based on governmentally inconsequential prejudices.