Why?The theoretical hardships children may or may not face has no stance on deciding who can and cannot marry.
The question is why the right or marriage is exempt from the controlling in terest of the state 'welfare of the children'?
Simply stating that it is exempt doesnt answer the question.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
That much has been made VERY clear -- all that matters is which rights can be comprimised by the 'compelling state interest in the welfare of the child' argument, not the actual welfare of the children. If there's a right that someone likes -- in this case, that of people of mixed races who want to marry -- the 'compelling state interest' argument is tossed out the window.
You may now resume trying to turn this into a argument about guns.
Are the couple actually restricted from getting the license? Are they unable to get a license from another justice?Equal protection under the law refers to the issuing of the license, an important constitutional protection and one of the foundations for the opinion issued in Loving.