Perez v. Sharp Cal. S.Ct. 1948

1. Perez v. Sharp (Cal. S.Ct. 1948) Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis challenged California antimiscegenation law on religious freedom and equal protection grounds. Majority opinion (Traynor, J. + 3): This is part of the fundamental right to marry someone of their own choice. The ban on interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Dissent: (Schenck, J. + 2): Regulating marriage is the purview of the state. 10:41

2. Quotes from Perez v. Sharp �The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one�s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Marriage and procreation are fundamnetal to the very existence and survival of the race� [T]he right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one�s choice�� at Page 2. 10:41

3. Loving v. Virginia (1967) Mildred and Richard Loving married 1958 in D.C. but were unable to live in Virginia because of its antimiscegenation law. Does the law violate Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amend? Yes and Yes. The law is an invalid racial classification meant to further White Supremacy and invalid burden on the fundamental right to marry. 10:41