> "but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue "
So, I assume you're leaving Loving v. Virginia out of that figure? [1]
So, I assume you're leaving Loving v. Virginia out of that figure? [1]
Loving v. Virginia was struck down because it sought to arbitrarily hinder this right. However, gay marriage is a very different issue, because it seeks to expand the right to more people.
I would also take issue with your framing of this case. I view gender as just as arbitrary a hindrance as race, especially given that the "Biblical definition of marriage" also dictates things like how one should treat their sex slaves. It's also worth noting that it was religious conservatives that were also raging against the decision in Loving v. Virginia, because it violated "traditional" notions of marriage.
So, what's the difference between an "arbitrary hindrance" and an "expansion of rights"? Who gets to decide? Which one is allowed, in your view?