X marrying Y <> Y marrying X?

Landau, James James.Landau at NGC.COM
Mon Sep 10 12:31:51 UTC 2007

-----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.

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

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

More information about the Ads-l mailing list