SCOTUS Marriage Ruling - Then....and soon...

[LeftHander]

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Here is the future ruling...

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of all people," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the gender bias classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

[Spinzonner]

1. With all due respect

and I support marriage rights and equality, you had to drop the clause "fundamental to our very existence and survival".

That will weaken the argument for those predisposed though I find the legal arguments compelling enough.

I think that fact will keep the comparison from winning many converts.

[imdjh]

4. Interracial marriage didn't meet that test either, so I don't know why you couldn't say it about gay

""fundamental to our very existence and survival""

Nice flowery addition to the ruling, but one really can't make the case that interracial marriage is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the black race, the white race, the human race, of Anglo-American culture or African American culture. In fact, many have long (since colonial times) predicted that the multi-racial make up of the US population guaranteed that we would be a mixed race (and presumably therefore neither race) nation. So I don't see it as integral to the ruling. Which isn't what you said, of course. What you said was that some folks would hinge their objection to the commonality of inequity on that clause. You're probably correct.

[Unvanguard]

5. The language is originally from a case about sterilization, if I recall correctly.

But even then the right is not "fundamental to our existence and survival" in the sense that violating it will lead to our extinction: the continuation of the human species is not seriously imperiled if a small minority of people are forcibly sterilized.

I'd suggest that the right way to read the phrase is as a reference to the centrality of romantic and sexual desire and expression to our lives: because they are (in general) important to our survival as a species, they are naturally important, fundamental parts of our lives, part of our right of liberty. For the government to intervene in that expression without a very good reason is a violation of our rights, not because it somehow threatens the propagation of our species, but because it interferes in our right to freely organize something basic to who we are as biological creatures.

And that certainly applies to same-sex marriage, too.

[GodlessBiker]

2. Fundamental to "our" survival? Who is "our"? I know plenty of single folks who are doing just fine

[LeftHander]

3. It was the court opinion from Loving vs. Virginia

The unanimous 1969 landmark ruling that declared inter-racial marriage bans unconstitutional.

I just changed a few words to show that the "sprirt" of the ruling can hold for same sex marriage.