Reply #27: You nailed what I was missing: Loving v Virgina

[bluedawg12]

I hadn't gotten to reading about that case, although I had heard it mentioned.

I appreciate you explaining it and it's relevance to gay marriage equality rights. If you change the language and substitute same sex marriage it would fit the legal decision, too.

"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."

This is hopeful for those of us who live in States where the discussion of g-m rights has not progressed beyond the stage of discussions in the State legislature where clergy are invited to speak on the "procreative reasons" for marriage. The ultimate Federal approach seems more expedient and a straightforward way to get from here to there ( our rights).

Thanks again for your time and efforts, t-bear. :pals: