question: Which landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court involved the issue of interracial marriage that used the Latin phrase " Et uxor?"
answer: Loving v. Virginia
context: Title: Et uxor
  Passage: Et uxor is a Latin phrase meaning "and wife", commonly abbreviated "et ux."  The term is a legal phrase that is used in lieu of naming the female spouse of a male party to litigation, for example "Loving et ux.  v. Virginia".  The term remains in contemporary use in American legal documents, especially as related to property and marriage.  Many older property deeds list the owners in the form "John Smith "et ux.""  In the present day, most jurisdictions would indicate both the husband and wife by name.
  Title: Loving Day
  Passage: Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision "Loving v. Virginia" which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws remaining in sixteen U.S. states." In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were U.S. state laws banning interracial marriage, mainly forbidding marriage between non-whites and whites.
  Title: Obergefell v. Hodges
  Passage: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) ( ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a 5–4 decision.
  Title: Loving v. Virginia
  Passage: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
  Title: V.L. v. E.L.
  Passage: V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.  In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.  However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.  E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.  On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.  The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.  V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.  On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.
  Title: King v. Smith
  Passage: King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends.  The issue before the US Supreme Court involved how the states could determine how to implement a federal program.  The court used the term "co-operative federalism."
  Title: United States v. Windsor
  Passage: United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No.  12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."
  Title: Et vir
  Passage: Et vir is a Latin phrase meaning "and husband".  It is used in legal literature to indicate a couple comprising an identified woman and her otherwise unidentified husband.  For example, the U.S. Supreme Court case "Troxel et vir v. Granville" is an example of modern legal usage of the Latin phrase.  Additionally, many property deeds would list the owners in the form "Jane Doe "et vir"" when appropriate.
  Title: Interracial marriage in the United States
  Passage: Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at earlier dates.  Multiracial Americans numbered 9.0 million in 2010, or 2.9% of the total population, but 5.6% of the population under age 18.  The actual number is likely much higher, for example a study of college students identifying as white found that 30% had less than 90% European ancestry, and one recent study found that African Americans have an average of 21% European ancestry.
  Title: McLaughlin v. Florida
  Passage: McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a cohabitation law of Florida, part of the state's anti-miscegenation laws, was unconstitutional.  The law prohibited habitual cohabitation by two unmarried people of opposite sex, if one was black and the other was white.  The decision overturned "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), which had declared such statutes constitutional.  It did not overturn the related Florida statute that prohibited interracial marriage between whites and blacks.  Such laws were declared unconstitutional in 1967 in "Loving v. Virginia".
citations: Et uxor Loving v. Virginia