X marrying Y <> Y marrying X?

[Landau, James]

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurence Horn [mailto:laurence.horn at YALE.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: X marrying Y <> Y marrying X?

At 11:01 PM -0400 9/9/07, Baker, John wrote:
>The mutual aspect actually was quite important in Loving v.
>Virginia, the 1967 case referred to.  Virginia contended that, because
>its miscegenation statutes punished equally both the white and the
>Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite
>their reliance on racial classifications, did not constitute an
>invidious discrimination based upon race.  The court didn't buy it.
>
>

Wonder what the current court would have thought.

________________________________

We know exactly what the current Supreme Court thinks of miscegenation.
Not only are they in favor of it, they practice it.

Was there ever a more appropriate name for a court case than "Loving v.
Virginia"?

I don't know how the Virginia law read, but the equivalent law in
Maryland did not stop with white-black marriages but also banned,
presumably inter alia, white-Filipino marriages.  The brother of a white
(in fact Irish) friend of mine, who lived in Baltimore, wanted to marry
a Filipino woman.  This was I believe in 1963.  Because the marriage
would have been illegal in Maryland, they had to hold the wedding in
Washington DC.

James A. Landau
test engineer
Northrop-Grumman Information Technology
8025 Black Horse Pike, Suite 300
West Atlantic City NJ 08232 USA
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
RTSCT SLNJG LSKBG TQBOT IVYWS RZUWJ GZHZC
YVQSL W
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org