June 12th, 1967: The Supreme Court of the United States decided Loving v. Virginia, ruling that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute was unconstitutional. Wikipedia currently explains the case thusly (and I deem it to be accurate enough for our purposes):
What the court wrote in their decision is very fascinating:
People like to say there's no right to marry in arguments over same-sex marriage, but that statement seems to be invalid in the light of judicial precedent. The court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to say that the right to marry does exist, and this was the basis for deeming bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
The topic for this thread: What implications does this have for same-sex marriage, in and of itself? Do note that this fact isn't necessarily sufficient grounds to legalize same-sex marriage, so no knee-jerk reactions against my thread are allowed.
In the name of intellectual honesty, keeping the record straight, and maximum propagation of knowledge, I point out that there is precedent deeming bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, although I certainly think the precedent ought to be overturned in light of America's general opposition to discrimination based on sex, among other things. I turn your attention to Baker v. Nelson. This was a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that Minnesota law restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples and that it's allowed by the Constitution. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which rejected it "for want of a substantial federal question." This means the court deemed the case as lacking merit. Such decisions are binding on all lower courts unless and until the Supreme Court ever decides that it's not a meritless question anymore, which apparently they are free to do, unless I'm mistaken. For the time being, bans on same-sex marriage arguably are allowed by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
What the court wrote in their decision is very fascinating:
People like to say there's no right to marry in arguments over same-sex marriage, but that statement seems to be invalid in the light of judicial precedent. The court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to say that the right to marry does exist, and this was the basis for deeming bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.
The topic for this thread: What implications does this have for same-sex marriage, in and of itself? Do note that this fact isn't necessarily sufficient grounds to legalize same-sex marriage, so no knee-jerk reactions against my thread are allowed.
In the name of intellectual honesty, keeping the record straight, and maximum propagation of knowledge, I point out that there is precedent deeming bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, although I certainly think the precedent ought to be overturned in light of America's general opposition to discrimination based on sex, among other things. I turn your attention to Baker v. Nelson. This was a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that Minnesota law restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples and that it's allowed by the Constitution. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which rejected it "for want of a substantial federal question." This means the court deemed the case as lacking merit. Such decisions are binding on all lower courts unless and until the Supreme Court ever decides that it's not a meritless question anymore, which apparently they are free to do, unless I'm mistaken. For the time being, bans on same-sex marriage arguably are allowed by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
