Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: July 2012

18 - Beyond the Loving Analogy

Summary

In recent years, there has been a renaissance of interest in Loving v. Virginia because of its role in the same-sex marriage debate. According to some gay and lesbian advocates, the Court’s decision to strike down bans on interracial marriage provides a constitutional roadmap for undoing sex-based restrictions on the right to marry. Although the analogy to Loving has produced high-profile courtroom victories, these novel arguments also have yielded a number of defeats. Interestingly, recent litigation successes in the same-sex marriage campaign have turned on a new constitutional logic, one that does not depend on extensive comparisons to race. As important as this emerging logic is in addressing the historical exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, the approach is but a first step in understanding fully what authentic liberty and equality mean in the realm of intimacy.

The Loving Analogy in Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The Loving analogy has served several key purposes in the same-sex marriage movement. For one thing, the landmark 1967 civil rights decision demonstrates that courts can nullify even long-standing marriage laws, so long as they are rooted in irrational discrimination, whether that be racism or homophobia. In addition to this principle of equal treatment, the opinion makes clear that the freedom to marry is a fundamental right, one that cannot be burdened without a compelling justification. So, stereotypical images of interracial marriages as unstable and antisocial could not justify antimiscegenation laws, nor should misleading portraits of gay and lesbian relationships be used to uphold bans on same-sex marriage. Overall, then, Loving shows that tradition alone, whether of same-race or opposite-sex marriages, cannot be invoked to perpetuate exclusion and subordination.

Hallahan, Jones v. 1973
Nelson, Baker v. 1971
Wolfson, Evan 2004
Lewin, Baehr v. 1993
1999
2009
2010
2009
1999
Dwyer, Devinhttp://abcnews.go.com/story?id=8992720&page=1 2011
1993
2003
2008
1995
2007
1974
Cray, Ed 1997
Schwartz, Bernard 1997
Brown, Herbert C.History Doesn’t Repeat Itself, but It Does Rhyme – Same-Sex Marriage: Is the African-American Community the Oppressor This Time? 34 S.U. L. Rev169 2007
Wardle, Lynn D.Oliphant, Lincoln C. 2007
2009
2010
Schatschneider, RebeccaOn Shifting Sand: The Perils of Grounding the Case for Same-Sex Marriage in the Context of Antimiscegenation 14 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev285 2004
Halley, Janet 2000
2008
2006
Cox, Barbara J.“A Painful Process of Waiting”: The New York, Washington, New Jersey, and Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That “Same-Sex Marriage” Is Not What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking 45 Cal. W. L. Rev139 2008
Novkov, JulieThe Miscegenation/Same-Sex Marriage Analogy: What Can We Learn from Legal History? 33 Law & Soc. Inquiry345 2008
Polikoff, Nancy D. 2008
Hertz, RosannaFerguson, Faith I.T.Kinship Strategies and Self-Sufficiency Among Single Mothers by Choice: Post Modern Family Ties 20 Qualitative Soc187 1997
2001
2006
2002
2007
2000
2010 http://www.hrc.org/documents/marriage_prohibitions_2009.pdf