Oh, get a grip!! There is no such thing as a constitutional right to "marry whomever you choose". Never was .. never has been ... and never will be. That's a total fabrication .. or hallucination ... valid only in the far reaches of your mind!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! That's funny. I'm afraid you may be wrong my friend. In reference to marrying someone of another race (marrying whomever you choose), in 1948, the California Supreme Court of California ended its miscegenation law (anti interracial marrying law) when it broke a sixty-five year string of post-Reconstruction judicial precedents based on race -it declared California's miscegenation law to be unconstitutional. State Supreme Court Justice Roger Traynor stated, "A member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups." And in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court agreed by striking down all anti-interracial marriage state laws. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, "There can be no doubt, that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause." Laws forbidding people to marrying whomever they pleased of another race or ethnicity, was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. So, I don't think I'm fabricating nor having an hallucination.
There have always been laws on the books regulating marriage and restricting certain types of marriages (cousins, family members, the mentally infirm). Where you got the notion that everything and everybody was fair game ... well, I don't even wanna know!!
I think you are somewhat twisting the debate. The reference to the right to marry someone you choose does not hinge on brothers and sisters, parents and offspring. There are scientific reasons for banning marriages between people of the same family genetic pool. There is no scientific reason for banning people to marrying of a different race or gender. Sorry….
Again .... the Lovings WERE legally married. They didn't win the right to marry! They didn't win the right to marry each other. They ALREADY had that right. What they won was the right to not be discriminated against for it ... in the state of Virginia.
Doesn't matter. It depended on where the marriage license was issued. In the case of the Lovings, they produced a marriage license because the police wanted to charge them with fornification (which was illegal). As you stated, they were already married but it did not matter because the marriage license was illegal in the state of Virginia. Perhaps you have overlooked the fact (or may not be aware of it) that during World War II, social dislocations were common in a time of war. This led to interracial marriages at home and abroad. The NAACP (sometimes with the help of the Red Cross) attempted to assist individual couples evade the miscegenation laws of their home states by directing them to marriage license officials in Northern states. The Lovings were issued a marriage license and married in 1958 in the “District of Columbia” -not in the state of Virginia. When they lived in Virginia, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages.
Constitutionally, it wasn't against the law to marry inter-racially. It was Virginia that was in violation of constitutional law by not allowing such marriages or cohabitation.
Ummm, once again, you are greatly overlooking something here. In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court stated under the US Constitution, "…the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The ban on interracial marriage was based on state law -not US constitutional law. The 1967 US Supreme Court decision overturned the laws against interracial marriage that were still in effect in “16 states”. In fact, if you recall, the state of Alabama did not repeal its state ban on interracial marriage until 2000 (although it was not enforced).
If you're gonna try to argue a point .. the least you can do is try to get it straight!