<P> Monks then challenged the Arizona anti-miscegenation law itself, taking her case to the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District . Monks' lawyers pointed out that the anti-miscegenation law effectively prohibited Monks as a mixed - race person from marrying anyone: "As such, she is prohibited from marrying a negro or any descendant of a negro, a Mongolian or an Indian, a Malay or a Hindu, or any descendants of any of them . Likewise...as a descendant of a negro she is prohibited from marrying a Caucasian or a descendant of a Caucasian ..." The Arizona anti-miscegenation statute thus prohibited Monks from contracting a valid marriage in Arizona, and was therefore an unconstitutional constraint on her liberty . However, the court dismissed this argument as inapplicable, because the case presented involved not two mixed - race spouses but a mixed - race and a white spouse: "Under the facts presented the appellant does not have the benefit of assailing the validity of the statute ." Dismissing Monks' appeal in 1942, the United States Supreme Court refused to reopen the issue . </P> <P> The turning point came with Perez v. Sharp (1948), also known as Perez v. Lippold . In Perez, the Supreme Court of California recognized that bans on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution . </P> <P> The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Lovings' convictions in a unanimous decision dated June 12, 1967, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race and providing identical penalties to white and black violators could not be construed as racially discriminatory . The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . </P> <P> Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: </P>

Which statement is true about attitudes regarding marriage in the united states today