 Here at AFER, we often talk about how the United States Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. But what are those 14 cases going all the way back to the 1880s? Let's take a closer look at exactly what they were about and how they bolster the case to overturn Prop 8. At the American Foundation for Equal Rights, I'm Matt Baume, and welcome to a special episode of Marriage News Watch. The Supreme Court's ruled on marriage over a dozen times, and those cases touched on a wide range of issues, from parenting, to divorce, to reproduction and housing. But if they hear our case, it could be the first time that the court rules on the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian Americans. So let's go back to 1888 with Maynard v. Hill. That case clarified the rules for divorce, and the court wrote that marriage is the most important relation in life, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. Those words are 125 years old, but they illustrate a crucial point. Marriage isn't just some run-of-the-mill interest, it's a fundamental freedom. It's special. And the government can't restrict it, unless there's a really good reason. And that really good reason, as we saw in the Prop 8 case, simply doesn't exist. The next major marriage case was Maynard v. Nebraska in 1923. That case involved parental rights, and the court wrote that the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children is a central part of the due process clause of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution protects marriage. That was followed by four cases involving reproductive rights, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Kerry v. Population Services International in 1977, and later Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Those cases prompted the Supreme Court to write that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, and involves a right to privacy older than the Bill of Rights. The court added that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage. Those four cases spanned 50 years, during which the court also heard loving v. Virginia. That's the big one, that in 1967 overturned racist anti-miscegenation laws. The court wrote in Loving, the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. In the plaintiff in that case, Mildred Loving wrote, I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have the same freedom to marry. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving v. Virginia and Loving each other are all about. Following the Loving case were seven separate cases that invoked the due process clause in recognizing the importance of marriage. First was Bodie v. Connecticut in 1971 involving divorce law. The court wrote, marriage involves interest of basic importance to our society and is a fundamental human relationship. That was followed by Cleveland Board of Education, V. La Fleur, which overturned discriminatory maternity laws in 1974. The court wrote, personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Then came Morvey, city of East Cleveland in 1977, which overturned a law that limited the definition of family to only nuclear families. A year later, the court heard Zablaki v. Redhill, a challenge to laws that restricted remarriage. The court ruling was consistent with past decisions. The right to marry is one of fundamental importance for all individuals. We're in the home stretch now with Turner v. Safely, 1987, that case unanimously overturned a law that prevented prisoners from remarrying without permission from the warden. Again, the court wrote that the decision to marry is a fundamental right. And in a 1996 case involving parenting, known as MLB VSLJ, the court wrote, choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among the associational rights this court has ranked as of basic importance in our society. Rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the state's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, and disrespect. And now we get to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, a landmark decision that overturned some, but not all, discriminatory anti-gay laws. In that decision, the court wrote, our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do. So why does all this matter? Because all of these cases track closely with the case against Proposition 8. The rulings against Prop 8 closely echo that long history of rulings by the Supreme Court. When the district court ruled in our favor in 2010, it was on the basis of due process and equal protection. In fact, the court cited Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut writing, the right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and with mutual consent join together and form a household. And when the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, the court wrote that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution by excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage. The court wrote Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, which is a distinct constitutional violation in that it subjects a minority group to the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason. The rulings in our case are consistent with 125 years of rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States. And that's just one of the reasons we're confident we'll win. But we'll still need your help to do it. We have winning arguments, but bringing them to the Supreme Court requires a lot of resources. Visit AFER.org to find out how you can help add this case to the long list of cases that expanded the freedom to marry. At the American Foundation for Equal Rights, I'm Matt Baume. Thanks for watching.