The Constitutional Case for Marriage Equality

Vote up on Reddit: http://bit.ly/mlum7D

On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in more than a dozen states in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Today, the highest court in the United States may soon take on the issue of marriage equality for gay and lesbian relationships. Attorneys David Boies and Theodore B. Olson are hoping the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger will further establish marriage as a fundamental right of citizenship. Also featured are John Podesta, President of the Center for American Progress, Cato Institute Chairman Robert A. Levy and Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz.

Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg. Event footage shot by Evan Banks.

• Category

  News & Politics

[MrPinkcarpet]

WOW - what a wonderful video. Thank you for sharing these wise words with the world. best wishes in your fight for full equality and nothing less.

[Paletero336]

nope

marriage in general is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.

Definitions have varied depending on culture.

[doncourson]

Slight of hand switching to "person". Lawyers weasel trick to avoid the underlying issue by changing the definitions. Citizens own their right to contract. The reason for the contract nor the number TWO are emotional not legal reasons. Hit it hard, the rights we own do not come from government. The entire Cato argument is a softheaded way of incrementalism. Problem with my argument... Then we are not serf's to the state and that mucks it up for both the political left and the right.

[procommenter]

Should not a loving father be able to marry his son?

[procommenter]

Marriage = sexual intercourse, introduction of semen into the vagina from which the marriage of genetic material forms a new Human Being; from which Humanity increases in number; by which the Human species is propagated; by which genetic traits are forwarded. Marriage can only be based on this reality. A man (a post-pubescent male) penetrates a woman's birth canal (a post-pubescent female) with his erect penis to deposit ejaculant (containing his 23 chromosomes).

[theuglykwan]

That is a solution. But it is a poor one. The benefits of marriage to society and couples are obvious, only permitting religious people to be married is harmful to society.

[theuglykwan]

This is nonsense which should have been dispelled if you paid attention in high school. When one detail is changed must all restrictions be removed? 

Legally consenting adults do not apply to inanimate objects, only humans who are of age to consent.

If something causes harm, it will continue to cause harm if gay marriage is legalized. The argument is actually more sophisticated than just equality, it is assumed you know that.

[mrcongeniality88]

What I think is funny about the whole "redefining marriage" argument is that marrying for love is a VERY recent development in our history, think of the days when a woman got married based on the size of her dowry. Oh and if she wasn't a virgin??? Forgettaboutit!