<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Convictions : equal protection</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/equal+protection/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: equal protection</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator><item><title>Mildred Loving Speaks</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/06/mildred-loving-speaks.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 15:24:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:2751</guid><dc:creator>Jack Balkin</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/2751.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2751</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN class=rss:item&gt;&lt;IMG title="AP Photo" style="WIDTH:210px;HEIGHT:150px;" height=150 alt="AP Photo" src="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2185237/2187051/2190799/2190800/080506_CV_Lovings.gif" width=210 align=left&gt;Mildred Loving, who along with her husband, Richard, was a plaintiff in the 1967 case of &lt;A href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;amp;vol=388&amp;amp;invol=1"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Loving v. Virginia&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/A&gt;&lt;EM&gt;,&lt;/EM&gt; passed away May 2. Her obituary is &lt;A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/06loving.html?partner=rssuserland"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;. In &lt;EM&gt;Loving v. Virginia&lt;/EM&gt;, the Supreme Court held that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause both because they violated principles of racial equality and because they abridged a fundamental right to marry. The case is doctrinally important for many reasons, including the court's recognition that the Equal Protection Clause protects certain fundamental rights, for its recognition of a fundamental right to marry, for its application of strict scrutiny to strike down racial classifications (an idea first raised in the &lt;A href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/323/214.html"&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Korematsu&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/A&gt; decision, which had nevertheless upheld the classification), and for its embrace of an anti-subordination as well as an an anti-classification model of race equality.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/05/mildred-loving-speaks.html"&gt;continue reading at Balkinization ...&lt;/A&gt; &lt;BR&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2751" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/fundamental+rights/default.aspx">fundamental rights</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Mildred+Loving/default.aspx">Mildred Loving</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/equal+protection/default.aspx">equal protection</category></item></channel></rss>