E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
R. Bertraine Heine / AP
In this May 18, 1970, photo provided by The Minnesota Historical Society, Mike McConnell, left, and Jack Baker attempt to obtain a Hennepin County marriage license in Minneapolis.
When Jack Baker proposed to Michael McConnell that they join their lives together as a couple, in March 1967, McConnell accepted with a condition that was utterly radical for its time: that someday they would legally marry.
Just a few years later, the U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door on the men's Minnesota lawsuit to be the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the U.S. It took another 40 years for the nation's highest court to revisit gay marriage rights, and Baker and McConnell — still together, still living in Minneapolis — are alive to see it.
On Friday, the justices decided to take a potentially historic look at gay marriage by agreeing to hear two cases that challenge official discrimination against gay Americans either by forbidding them from marrying or denying those who can marry legally the right to obtain federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.
"The outcome was never in doubt because the conclusion was intuitively obvious to a first-year law student," Baker wrote in an email to The Associated Press. The couple, who have kept a low profile in the years since they made national headlines with their marriage pursuit, declined an interview request but responded to a few questions via email.
While Baker saw the court's action as an obvious step, marriage between two men was nearly unthinkable to most Americans decades earlier when the couple walked into the Hennepin County courthouse in Minneapolis on May 18, 1970, and tried to get a license.
New York City's Stonewall riots, seen now as the symbolic start to the modern gay rights movement, were less than a year in the past. Sodomy laws made gay sex illegal in nearly every state; most gay men and lesbians were concerned with much more basic rights like keeping their jobs and homes or simply living openly.
Same-sex couples wed in Seattle for first time
"People at the time said these guys were crazy," said Phil Duran, legal counsel to OutFront Minnesota, the state's principal gay rights lobby. "I think today, most people would say, 'Holy mackerel, you saw this when no one else did.' History will vindicate them. It already has."
Forty years after they appeared in a "Look" magazine spread and on "The Phil Donahue Show," Baker and McConnell have retreated from public life. The men, both 70, live in a quiet, nondescript south Minneapolis neighborhood. McConnell recently retired after a long career with the Hennepin County library system. Baker, a longtime attorney who ran unsuccessfully for Minneapolis City Council and a judgeship in the years after they pursued a marriage license, is mostly retired as well. Their case is no longer widely recalled in Minnesota, and the couple has mostly withdrawn from open activism, although the two men are working on a book about their lives.
Today, nine states have legalized gay marriage or are about to do so. The state-by-state approach adopted by gay rights groups has gathered steam, while the Supreme Court has yet to revisit its slim holding in Baker v. Nelson or address whether the Constitution extends marriage rights to straight and gay couples alike.
Just a day after Washington became the latest state to allow gay couples to marry, the U.S. Supreme Court will take a serious look at same-sex marriage for the first time ever. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
The high court in October 1972 declined to hear arguments in Baker v. Nelson, rejecting it in a one-sentence dismissal "for want of a substantial federal question." Now, in taking up the dispute over the California constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the court may confront the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution forbids states from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"I am convinced that same-sex marriage will be legalized in the United States," Baker told a group of lawyers on Oct. 21, 1971, quoted then by the St. Paul Pioneer Press (in a story that described him as an "admitted homosexual"). But for years after the high court refused to hear arguments in Baker v. Nelson, its single sentence was cited as precedent by federal courts that ruled against same-sex unions.
US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue
According to an unpublished book about their case by Ken Bronson, a Chicago-based amateur historian who extensively interviewed Baker and McConnell, the two met at a Halloween party in Norman, Okla., in 1966. McConnell, at this first meeting, expressed his belief that gay people should not be treated like second-class citizens. Not long after, Baker —a U.S. Air Force veteran with an undergraduate degree in engineering — was fired from a job at Tinker Air Force base for being gay.
Soon the couple relocated to Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota, McConnell to take a job at its library and Baker to study law. He joined a campus group called FREE (Fight Repression of Erotic Expression), an early gay-rights group.
"The fear then wasn't that you'd be discriminated against, that was a given," said Jean Tretter, a member of FREE who went on to decades of gay activism in Minnesota. "You were a lot more afraid that someone might come after you with a shotgun."
Baker and McConnell — educated, clean-cut and handsome — contrasted with the typically scruffy counterculture activists of the era. But the Hennepin County attorney blocked their bid for a marriage license, a decision upheld by a district judge and affirmed by the state Supreme Court with reasoning that echoes in today's arguments against gay marriage: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the Book of Genesis."
Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage
Asked via email why they pursued the case, Baker wrote, "The love of my life insisted on it."
It was a stormy time for the couple. Soon after McConnell relocated to Minnesota, the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents yanked his job offer because he was openly gay; the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his separate lawsuit to get it back. In April 1971, amid both legal dramas, Baker was elected and then a year later re-elected as president of the university's student government.
Two decades after the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson, the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that homosexuals had a constitutional right to marry. It started the ball rolling on a movement that has seen many victories and setbacks since.
"Jack was the politician — outgoing and effective, manipulating the material world," said Roger Lynn, a retired Methodist pastor who performed a marriage ceremony for the men in 1971, and who remains in touch with them occasionally. "Michael was the librarian, detail-oriented, more introverted. They were a good match, and they're still making it work."
In a strange twist to their story, Baker wrote via email that he and McConnell would be personally unaffected if Minnesota legalizes gay marriage. In 1971, about 18 months after Hennepin County rejected their application, the couple traveled to southern Minnesota's Blue Earth County, where they obtained a marriage license on which Baker was listed with an altered, gender-neutral name.
That license was later challenged in court but was never explicitly invalidated by a judge. While Baker recently predicted on his blog that gay marriage would be legalized in Minnesota soon, he emailed that he and McConnell don't see a need to make it official in Hennepin County.
"We are legally married," Baker wrote.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Storm pounds Upper Midwest with heavy snow, wind
- Cops: 2 University of Colorado students fed pot brownies to classmates, professor
- 3 dead, 4 hurt in Central California shootings, chase
- Cyber-graciousness: Students set up Facebook sites for compliments
- On gay marriage, Supreme Court could rule small, or big
- Video: Officers suspect high speed, alcohol in deadly NFL crash
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
After all their adversity, to see these two people still together is inspiring. It takes strong character & guts to be a pioneer for any cause. Hopefully they will eventually be able to see a county were everyone is treated fairly & equally under the law.
And this is still being ran in the News media,, They have the right now it is getting boring these news media stories lit it go!!!!
CD11,
"It takes strong character & guts to be a pioneer for any cause."
Yes, it does, and especially back then. That was in the very early days of the gay rights movement. The New York Stonewall Riot of June 27, 1969 marks the beginning of the modern gay rights movement.
Dan, there are only nine states/DC where we have that right, and this couple is in the news BECAUSE of the SCOTUS agreeing to hear two cases related to it...Prop 8 and DOMA. And, like any other civil rights issue, we DO need to keep it in the news.
Good for these two people! In a time and country where 99% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, this couple is one of the many reasons that gays should have the right to marry. It's time that America decides to let the ones who truly love each other live out their lives in happiness together with the same rights as everyone else.
99% of marriages end in divorce?! Where the hell did you get that erroneous information?
I was clearly exaggerating, but making a very valid point at the same time.
AzDrummer89,
99% is a bit of an exaggeration. The heterosexual divorce rate is over 50%, thought. I think in 1960 it was only about 2% so it looks like straight people don't like each other very much anymore, doesn't it?
WHile it is legal in the 9 states - it will not be a fully recognized right until married gay couples have all the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples.
The official divorce rate is under 33%; not 50%. The 50% was from a fuzzy math report some years back that has since been debunked.
The only thing these boys in Baker have proved is that nobody ever kept them from loving each other the past forty years; that not having been granted the right to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage never kept them from spending their lives together.
We the people have no interest in who or what you love; but we do have an interest in future generations that can only spring forth naturally through the joining of opposites.
The laws of nature and natures God must not be pushed aside just so elitests can dictate the acceptability of their proclivity.
Randy: " but we do have an interest in future generations"
How could future generations possibly be harmed by these two people getting married, especially when you just said that it made no difference whether they did or not?
jock, are you using logic with someone who claim to speak for "we the peoples", then speak about the laws of nature not realizing that homosexuality is found in quite a lot of species.
You should know better... :)
ha ha ha let these haters hate.....looking at u RandyEK......it will be the law of the land and I can't wait for the ruling....all u haters can move to Iran where religion rules!!!!
RandyEk,
"The official divorce rate is under 33%; not 50%. The 50% was from a fuzzy math report some years back that has since been debunked."
You're right. The divorce rate is no longer 50%, but it was 50% or more during the years 1976-1985. It has declined somewhat since then, but it is still nothing to brag about. We rank 6th. in the world for the number of divorces.
"How could future generations possibly be harmed by these two people getting married..."
In order for these two to be declared married you would first have to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage from a primary child centric institution to an adult centric institution; yet still you wonder how taking the focus away from the security of children and placing it on the transitory emotions of adults could possibly harm children?
"When you belong to me you will hate what I hate"
Hating what God hates is not a sin; it happens to be divine.
RandyEK,
"In order for these two to be declared married you would first have to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage from a primary child centric institution to an adult centric institution"
When was marriage ever defined as a "primary child centric institution"? Are you a sociologist? That sounds like sociologist talk to me. That isn't how my dictionary (Websters) defines it. It says nothing about children.
Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful being like God need a petty emotion like hate?
Apparently he thinks everyone will turn gay, if they are allowed to marry, and not produce children.
God hates gays? LOL I thought he loved everyone?
BTW Mr. "I hate what God hates" so I'm devine ...God isn't real. :-O
Yeah, Randy, Matt and BP are right. Read 1 John 4:8. It says, "He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love". I doesn't say anything about God hating anyone or anything. In fact, it says "God is love". He is love itself. So there could not be any room in him for hate, otherwise God would contradict himself, and that cannot be, can it?
"Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord."
He is a loving God, he is a forgiving God, he is a just God; he is also a vengeful, hateful, and jealous God, and why wouldn't he be? - Sodom and Gomorrah ring any bells?
He offers you ever-lasting life, but you choose death, he offers you freedom, but you choose sin.
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." Benjamin Franklin
The connection between Sodom and Gomorrah and homosexuality was not made until the fifteenth century.
Apparently you missed the whole "Jesus dying for our sins so God won't wreck such vengeance on us anymore" part.
Again you make up quotes that were not said by the Founding Fathers, Randy:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Okay except for the fact that the current definition of what constitutes a marriage restricts who can be considered a "spouse" thereby depriving same sex partners from receiving some of the same benefits that opposite-sex partners receive. Things things like inheritance, spousal benefits, medical decisions that can only be made by a relative or a spouse, etc.
RandyEk,
"He is a loving God, he is a forgiving God, he is a just God; he is also a vengeful, hateful, and jealous God, and why wouldn't he be? - Sodom and Gomorrah ring any bells?"
I was always under the impression that God cannot contradict himself, but it looks like the God you worship is a mass of contradictions. He doesn't seem to know whether he is coming or going!
Sounds like Randy's god needs a therapist.
"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin
http://www.earstohear.net/heritage/BenFranklin.html
Self evident truths are inconvenient enough for marriage corruption supporters; trying to obscure there intent by lying about those who pledged their very lives in support of them only makes you look cheap.
http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/franklin-and-the-well-informed-nation/
Nice try Randy. You fail again.
Wordpress is an atheist site dedicated to disinformation in support of their religion.
Apparently Randy is both really gullible and he took US history at David Barton's bible camp.
Earstohear.net is a religious site. Plus, I can find this quote everywhere but NOTHING on where it originated. Nothing on when Franklin supposedly wrote it or said it. No documentation whatsoever.
The Wordpress site merely argues that Franklin did not actually write this quote which has, over the years been attributed to him. Many quotes over the years have been attributed to people who either did not say/write them, or they have been altered over the years from what was originally said/written.
The irony is the he mentions marriage corruption supporters and Benjamin Franklin in the same post. You know, the most famous man-slut in U.S. history who also had a bastard son.
He had a great pick up line: "Hi, I'm Ben. I invented electricity. Want me to show you how to make some sparks?" LOL
Atheism isn't a religion. But hey, keep showcasing that ignorance Randy!
Your god sounds very 'human.'
Children is not the basis of marriage, nor are children required for marriage or vice versa. So your whole argument collapses right there!
Translation: "I don't hate gays. It's my invisible friend in the sky who hates gays." Talk about justification to hate and be a lemming.
Once upon a time, the meaning of marriage included no mixed races. Fortunately, you don't own the word marriage and marriage is a legal definition!
Are you saying gay marriage will stop people from procreating? Again, children is not a requirement for marriage!
You god doesn't make or have say in our secular laws! And our laws call for equality!
What don't people get? A man cannot marry a man despite all the attempts at changing word meanings, laws.
The state of marriage can only exist between opposite-sex couples. And that's an end to the debate.
So, if I sue to be called star basketball player, will winning my case in court immediately confer upon me the ability to dribble and make baskets? No, of course not! Neither can laws confer the essence marriage upon homosexual unions!
Give it up Mr. or Mrs. homosexual. Marriage cannot exist between same-sex couples! Period!
"And that's an end to the debate." You sound like a bullying parent or spouse.Love will prevail and all humans in this country will be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Bet it sucks to be your wife/lover or kid.
Historically, marriage has been a contract between 2 men. The woman was merely the commodity traded.
An end to the debate?? LOL, obviously it is NOT, when this married all-male couple is still hanging tough forty years down the road. Your assertion otherwise is just silly.
Lonesome: Homosexuality isn't a sport, there are no skills required. Stating your narrow perspective in such a dismissive manner is offensive. Begone, you have no power here. Nor do you have an adequate argument.
There is a simple solution that would make everyone happy. The first amendment establishes the seperation of church vs state. The government should get out of the mariiage business. Instead they could have a partner registration that would give the rights enjoyed by the current married couples to gay or single couples. Marriages would be left to the church, but you wouldn't need to be married to get registered as a partner.
"That's an end to the debate". What this means is that you're going to stop listening because you don't like what two people do in the privacy of their own homes. So, it's the land of the free...unless people like you disagree with how someone lives. You're a true patriot.
Lonesome is showing his bitter desperation as he realizes his side is losing, and there's nothing he can do about it.
And the earth is flat because I declare it to be.
Washington had the right idea when they legalized gay marriage and marijuana at the same time. This is in keeping with Old Testament law, where it says "If two men lie together, they shall be stoned."
Totally weird. The sanctity of Marriage is ONLY between One man, and One woman. What in the world is sacred between two same gendered folks boinkin' , fumblin', messing around with one another, and hey, if that's what they consider normal....it doesnt require MARRIAGE. They can buy a home, draw up legal documents, etc. and -- then do what ever homosexual and lesbians do with one another privately -- and, hey, its a major body-parts confuzion issue ! !
A marriage is a state sanctioned commitment between two people. And in many states it is not just a man and a woman. Get over yourself.
Holub- What in the world is sacred between two different gendered folks boinkin' , fumblin', messing around with one another, and hey, if that's what they consider normal....it doesnt require MARRIAGE.
Lonesome Rhoades-2738573:
Let me correct your assertion: a male can get married to another male, and a female to another female. Marriage is a secular institution and so can be defined or redefined as society deems necessary. No one individual or group holds a patent on the word or its meaning, no matter how much you belief differently. I will also let you in on this little secret, for as many marriages that exists there are definitions of marriage, because for each couple marriage means something different.
Second, stating that the debate is ended does not make it so. It's not as though anyone is really going to follow your decree.
Your statement that same-sex couples cannot get married is a false one. Since, as I stated earlier, marriage is a secular institution (always has been, the church didn't get involved in marriage until much later), it's the laws of the land that determines who can and cannot get married, not any one particular group. I live in a country where same sex couples have been able to marry for years. This directly contradicts your statement.
What's next? I want to marry my dog or my horse? What is the union called between trannies? Just as unnatural.
Ron, can your dog or house provide consent?
Ron,
I'm sorry, your beastiality issues will remain illegal until your horse and/or dog has legal capacity for informed consent.
My dog can. My "house can't.
Ron, if you think you dog can give legal consent you have bigger issues.
Ron,
Do me a favor. Take your dog to Bank of America, drop him off and wait for him to bring home a legal mortgage document, in his name.
Leviticus 18:22-"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination"
PRAISE GOD!!!
Oh walter, your fables have no bearing upon our secular legal structure. Have fun and go pray somewhere.
Sarah, I would have to go along and co-sign the loan documents, just as I would my wife who is definitely female
EngEsq
Oh walter, your fables have no bearing upon our secular legal structure. Have fun and go pray somewhere.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
your soon to be dismantled "secular legal structure" will do you no good on "Judgment Day" haven't Irene (Hurricane) and Sandy taught you no manners?
======================================================================
No, you wouldn't co-sign. It would have to be in your name. Seriously, go try it and see what they say.
No, your wife could get one on her own. Unless her credit sucks, but that isn't about consent it's about risk to the bank.
You're seriously going to stick with this argument? Go have your dog try to cash a check.
You really think hurricanes are god making a statement?! Wow!!! You amuse me :)
A statement on global warming, maybe.
Walter_P_Oreilly:
Is Jewish law, not Christian law, and there are very few people of the Jewish faith who interpret that verse as you have. Not to mention it's grossly mistranslated.
ay-1545594
Walter_P_Oreilly:
Is Jewish law, not Christian law, and there are very few people of the Jewish faith who interpret that verse as you have. Not to mention it's grossly mistranslated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's word for word from the Bible, If you don't believe me, read Romans 1.
========================================================
Sarah-3043284
A statement on global warming, maybe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
yep-know it for a fact-read Revelation.
=========================================
We've already been through this. I don't waste my time on irrelevance.
take a look at this:
"rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/gayagendaswifttext.html"
if this doesn't spell out the gay agenda
Sarah-3043284
We've already been through this. I don't waste my time on irrelevance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the only thing irrelevant is your soon to be dismantled "constitution"
Well, considering that Constitution protects me (thank God) from your religion. Until that happens, your religion remains what's irrelevant here. And you just said yourself, it hasn't happened yet.
Sarah-3043284
Well, considering that Constitution protects me (thank God) from your religion. Until that happens, your religion remains what's irrelevant here. And you just said yourself, it hasn't happened yet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
oh now your thanking God, he's not fooled.
=========================================
Maybe not YOUR God. My God doesn't give a @!$%#. And my God can beat your God up. Why? Because I said so.
See, I can think like you, too.
straight from the "Gay Manifesto"
"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men."
WOW-guess it's coming to fruition.
===============================================================
straight from the "Gay Manifesto"
"If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies."
WOW-guess it's coming to fruition.
straight from the "Gay Manifesto"
"We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens"
WOW-guess it's coming to fruition.
there's a lot more sick stuff but I'll post them later.
Please do. I don't think anybody could make the case FOR gay marriage and AGAINST DOMA, better than you.
Sarah-3043284
Please do. I don't think anybody could make the case FOR gay marriage and AGAINST DOMA, better than you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
thanx I will, I'm glad your coming around to seeing things my way, finally.
====================================================
Walter_P_Oreilly:
Here is Romans 1:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the
natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
Now, allow me to quote Rev. Daniel Payne who answers this:
Conclusion: Romans 1 does not condemn homosexuality at all.
Oh yeah, you're totally convincing me. Keep going.
Walter since you are such a fan of Leviticus. Have you stoned your disobedient wife, sold your sister into slavery and of course you don't waer clothes of mixed fabric. You also follow the dietary requiremnts of Leviticus. If not you are a hopeless sinner. I bet you are more a quoter rather than a example of what Leviticus requires of believers like youself. By the Grace of Jesus Christ fortunately your sine and all other's sins are forgiven.
Why? What's it done that is worth praising?
Walter, do you follow Deuteronomy 21:18-21? Have you murdered any of your children when they were disobedient?
Walter,
Are you aware that the Bible was not written in English, but translated from different original languages, and multiple different translations exist?
My feelings on homosexuality and marriage is that it is more of a government control issue. Currently, while gay marriage is illegal on a federal level, the gov't does not have to provide benefits to the partners of their dead gay employees, also they receive money through taxes when one partner dies, if it were a heterosexual couple all the property would easily and nontaxably revert to the living spouse. This is true discrimination all in the sake of money. It is disgusting and as I read our constitution, and many others do, is that in this nation all are equal and are afforded the same rights. Why should a gay couple not be able to receive benefits of the loved one they lost? Why should they be taxed when their significant other dies while heteros are not? Why should they be treated as second class citizens? They are people just like you and I, aside from sexuality preference, and if we are going to abide by our own constitution then all citizens should be treated equal by our gov't (with the exception of those who have foregone their rights; felons).
Even if I don't practice homosexuality, it gives me no right to force my opinions and beliefs on others. To Christians, and I am one, I say: Remember what Jesus taught, Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. What someone else does in their life is between them and God come their time, it's not your business. I have known several gay Christians and they love God just as much as any of us who believe, and God loves them as well b/c he created them and we know through the Bible that God destroys that which He hates, and there are still gays, so He must love his children as all parents do, unconditionally. We all sin and fall short of the sight of the Lord, and no sin is greater than any other in the eyes of our Lord. Do what you think is pleasing in the sight of the Lord and don't worry about others.
@Walter You forgot the rest of the Leviticus Rules and some interesting ones from Deuteronomy.
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
Looks like Lonesome Rhoades is still pissed that he hasn't been asked to marry any man.
Seems like Walter feels the same way.
Well, fortunately we have the Establishment Clause!
Conclusion: Romans 1 does not condemn homosexuality at all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
oh yes it does Romans 1 27 Clearly States Man left woman for vile passion
Don't know where he's coming up with that translation.
============================================
Tam-your just another Biblical Illiterate-Mixed fabric causes rashes, pigs don't sweat, certain beards represent pagan worship, cross pollination I guess is new to you, in short there are/were good reasons for the laws, Maybe not anymore and Matt 5 17-18 takes care of them, Now read up.
==================================================
I am not the one who wrote those scriptures. But if you are going to quote the bible to support bigotry and hatred, then you need to follow all of those rules. Now read up and let me know when you stone your unruly children and go on a killing spree to clean up all of the non-believers.
Walter_P_Oreilly, as homosexuality does not cause harm to your life, I don't see why you should care. No one is forcing you to practice homosexuality or to accept it as part of your life in any way, shape or form. It is not for you to judge, as that role is God's. If God is really against homosexuality, then those who practice it will face the results when they die. If God is not against it, then only those who have passed will be the only ones to know. Seeing as how the world hasn't ended since homosexuality has been existant in all species, including man, for centuries, I can assume that God is okay with it. Until then, keep to your life and live it how you wish and let others live the way they want while persuing happiness just as you have a right to do the same thing.
"Leviticus 18:22-"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination"
PRAISE GOD!!!"
Which God? There is a rather long list so I want to be sure its the right God.
Hey S,
I really agree with your post. MAYBE BECAUSE I WROTE IT...
There are chunks that are literally VERBATIM, dude. I guess I should be flattered?
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.
Just think Sarah.....all along you've been adding to Newsvine's intulekshewal property database. Eventually your data will compensate for Walter's intellectual black hole.
Congratulations on your long relationship. Mike and Jack. You prove that marriage isn't just for those one man/one woman proponents. You are just two years older than me, and I too experienced many of the same discriminations as you over the years. Today's youth still have a hard time with all of the bullying, etc., but at least they now have support groups. Most of us in our generation did not have that. Some of us, like you, do drop out of the activism role as we get older, but our hearts are still with the struggles. Glad to hear of your pioneer effort to the cause. Growing up in OH, I had not heard of your case at that time. If I had found Mr. Right then, I think I too might have wanted to do the same thing.
Give it up yourself, you religious bigot LR. There is nothing in secular society that ever created such a definition of marriage that wasn't tied to religion. ALL marriage licenses and the 1400+ laws related to those licenses that grant special benefits need to be changed to read exactly what they are... Civil Union, since that license is nothing more than a civil contract between two individuals for property rights, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. Originally, in most cultures, "marriage" was nothing more than a property rights contract between two families to unite their holdings (dowry). Marriages were fixed at a child's early age by the parents for no other reason than the property benefits uniting the two families. It had nothing to do with love, sex, or sexuality.
It seems to me that the simplest way to fix this issue would be to approach it from the angle of eligibility, that is, whether two people can marry each other would come down to each one's eligibility to marry. That would answer all the critics' silly arguments regarding children and farm animals, who are obviously NOT eligible to marry, and neither are people who are already married.
I applaud these two men for their courage in their fight at such a time in history, but I wonder if the negative precedent that was set as a result might have been averted if they had waited until the atmosphere was a bit more favorable. At any rate, congratulations to them for their continued dedication to each other.
People seem to forget that part of "traditional" marriage - that is was a contract between two families to bring more power or land or whatever to those families. The "happy couple" were, in fact, merely chattel.
most marriages today are lucky to reach 15 years let alone 40, I made it 13. Though I have a certain view of what marriage is I will not judge or begrudge another human being their right to be happy. If there is an issue before God it will be taken up then. Man isn't qualified to judge anything really... Look at the history of the world. I say quit making it a political issue let gays/lesbians marring and lets get on with things that are more important.... Like the present administration's inability to even pass a budget..... Now that's important.
The definition of marriage is one of age adult female and one of age adult male concenting to a union that originalted under God.
No matter what your beliefs are...this is marriage. Unfortunately, and with no disrespect, altering this definition would open doors to marriages that could be underage, to other innate objects and the door opens to all sorts of perversity's; even in nature marriage or union is to procreate...male and female to produce offspring. This is it.
What can be done for these individuals is a legal partnership similar to a corporation that is seen as a personal union or incorporation to protect assets that would be recognized and protect joint assets.
One serious issue on the horizon is adoption...I do not think anyone has the right to place a child into a gay home...that child would be eligible for an incredible lawsuit against the state or agencies involved for doing this to them. Children want two parents ...male and female.
Your entire argument here is ignorant and without basis in fact whatsoever. If you can find any claim to back up what you're saying it would be different but there are several adults who were raised by same sex couples who are now fighting for their rights to marry. You have no foundation whatsoever in your arguments and in several cases you're argument has been proven wrong. How about attempting research before you spout off?
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html
Now, the above article was written by scientists so I'm sure you're going to discount their views because...it's science, and people like you often turn away from presented facts because it doesn't fit your hateful, ignorant world view but here it is.
You say, "no disrespect" and then you post your ugly opinion. Well, no disrespect, but you're wrong and can be proven wrong.
So a man and a women who choose not to procreate, can not marry? Sorry Cheryl but I do not need to be married to procreate nor do I need to procreate to be in a marriage.
So I'm assuming you've asked children who've been born into homosexual houses? I know a lesbian couple that used a donor to have a child. The child has been living with 2 mommy's for 8 years now. He's very happy, has no behavioural issues, has many friends, and does well in school. I also know a child who's mommy refuses to see him, has an alcoholic father and is mostly watched by his grandparents. The kid is in therapy for anger issues and anti-social behavior. Do you honestly think that the child with the two mommy's would do better in the other house?
It might be your definition, but who are you to declare the rules for the entire world?
So do you advocate denying child custody and visitation to the gay natural parent? There are a large number of gay/lesbian parents out there, you know.
So there was no marriage before Christianity? Ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans..... Never got married? How do Atheists get married then? Why can I get married without invoking any God or stepping into a church?
Oh dear God, how many times do we have to say it. Children, animals and innate objects don't have legal capacity for informed consent. Why doesn't gay home ownership, lead to toaster home ownership, Cheryl???
Gay men still have sperm and gay women still have eggs, you know. And why do we allow infertile couples to marry then?
awesome, succint, and oh so totally correct. but as you probably know, no one holds onto their ideals as hard as those who are ignorant / biased / uneducated / bible-thumping / etc.
Has anyone ever looked at the disproportionate number of gay children coming out of gay unions compared to normal heterosexual unions? And they're born that way? Yea, right.
Yes. And then the credible academic and scientific community promptly discarded the research as, "Full of @!$%#". That's a technical term.
Now, bring on the APA's a gay indoctrinated community, conspiracy theory.
Take a look at this:
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/gayagendaswifttext.html
If your definition of "of age" is 13 y.o., then yes, that's how it's been in the Bible.
Marriage and procreation have nothing to do with each other. Marriage was a way to protect property and define the lines of inheritance.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
What about nature are you referring? Last I checked, as a biochemist, homosexuality is all over nature. Dogs, dolphins, monkeys, rabbits, elephants, whales and penguins amongst many have all been recorded as having same-sex relationships, not just sex.
Kids adopted by gay parents are exposed to more, that's obvious. But I would be willing to bet they're more open minded than your kids are. Now which child do I want... huh.... I want the happy, open minded, understanding, accepting child because that's how I raised them.
Lets allow the fundametalists to define marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. ANd than immediatly declare any marriage that is between a man and a woman who did not prior to marriage prove they could procreate as invalid and collect all those back taxes - and to prove they can procreate they have to present physicians certificates proving both are capable of biologically parenting a child or produce a child with the apporpriate paternity documentation. Also we must than immediately invalidatae any marriage between a man and a post menopausal woman, and same thing collect all those back taxes. And do we than require a couple to procreate if they are capable - procreation is the goal of marriage.
No marriage can take place with anyone/thing that cannot give adult concent. That means underage marriages, animals, objects, etc. And this is based on your exact phrase:
Animals can't concent, therefore people cannot marry them. Children are not adults and lack understanding of what is happening, therefore cannot concent. Not to mention that there are already laws in place that view a marriage to a child, even one that consists of sexual actions, illegal, which means that regardless of homosexuals legally marrying would NOT change any future laws regarding children. Objects obviously don't talk, therefore they cannot concent.
As for being between a man and woman, nature has already proven that all species of animals, including man, has had homosexuality present for centuries. It's nature's way to help control the population in some aspects. If the law changes to allow legalization of same-sex marriages, it will only affect same-sex couples. There will be no re-writing of laws on children and animals.
Aren't there more important issues to worry about besides 2 men wanting to suck each other off?
Absolutely, you know, like civil rights.
Yes. Apparently it's not enough that the behavior is no longer illegal. This is yet another desperate attempt for a group individuals to try to be accepted by society as something more than mentally ill. What started out as the "Gay" movement has now expanded to include bisexuals and transgender. I can't even imagine what subgroup the LGBT leadership will scrounge up next to increase their numbers. Personally, I believe gay unions should be recognized for legal purposes. However, I do not believe the institution of marriage should be polluted by lumping these sick individuals in just to help them feel normal.
Same argument was used against interracial marriages.
Or receive equal treatment under the law. But whatever.
There is no such thing as a homosexual, only people who commit homosexual acts. There remains no evidence of an "on/off" homosexual gene -- there are genes that lead to "weaknesses/preferences/inclinations" (such as having a sweet tooth, being prone to anger, liking blondes over brunettes) -- it all boils down to succumbing to actions that may or may not be socially acceptable. The point here is allowing public sanctioning of homosexual acts under the guise of a "marriage."
Several posters have shown outward scorn, bigotry and hatred to those with the seemingly minority opinion on the liberal MSNBC website. "It's all about me and how I wanna live as long as I'm 'happy'" crowd will always see homosexual acts by people of a majority age or "in private locales" as totally acceptable at any time.
However, the erroding societal slope is already too steep. First it was open acceptance of divorces in the mid-20th century. Then it was people having multiple divorces by mid-age. Then the children of divorced parents thought it was the norm (comfortable/acceptable) to simply have divorce as a "convenient" option for marital problems. Today, it's homosexual acts (regardless how nice or funny a person is, the capacity for love) that are glorified.
If homosexuals have the "right" to marry, there is NO LOGICAL or LEGAL reason (using interpretations of the US Constitution) that any other current just law can be thrown out. The ONLY crime mentioned in our federal constitution is treason. All other laws arguable have no "constitutional basis" other than a society's moral compass.
If homosexuals can marry (and already they've used the divorce card in some states), then there's no basis for minors - who consent with each other - to marry, or siblings to wed each other, or other closely related blood relatives. The liberal, amoral, self-absorbed hedonist will bask in "we do what we want sicne we're happy and it doesn't hurt anyone else". You can say that about pornography, too (who does it physically hurt?).
Apparently you'd prefer it was still illegal.
Homosexuality is finding only people of the same gender sexually attractive. You can never have sex, and still be homosexual.
Oh, your pissed they ended slavery.
BS. I'd like to see how you justify that. I want a legal argument, not some meaningless gibberish.
Minors are unable to consent. I can enter into a contract, but a minor cannot (unless it is for necessities).
What is more likely to lead to a brother and sister marrying, two guys marrying or a man and a woman marrying? Clearly gay marriage has zero bearing upon incest.
To..Gimme"""
Ahh ... another one playing the poor victim of liberalism card... so tragic
Gimmeabreakoradrink,
"It's all about me and how I wanna live as long as I'm 'happy'" crowd will always see homosexual acts by people of a majority age or "in private locales" as totally acceptable at any time."
You speak of happiness as something trivial, but doesn't the Declaration of Independence say, "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? So what is wrong with gays exercising their right to the pursuit of happiness?
Why does everyone focus on the sexual component of gay marriage? Yes, intimacy is a part of marriage, but only a part. You don't have to have the right to marry in order to engage in a sexual relationship with someone. This has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with property rights, taxation, custody rights, insurance, inheritance etc etc etc. Everything that hetero couples have a right to.
Gimmeabreakoradrink
Your knowledge of genetics is breathtakingly ignorant.
I was in a marriage in which my husband and I were unable to procreate due to medical problems. Does that mean my marriage was invalid? Is procreation the only reason for marriage? What about people who marry late in life, too late for children. Invalid? That argument is ridiculous. And Cheryl, you obviously know no gay people with children. A lesbian couple I am friends with are the best parents I know, raising one boy and one girl.
Tip of the hat to you Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell...it's been a long road..amazing how little we know about the history of the gay civil rights movement even after Stonewall...
For your consideration: Same sex couples don't have to be gay... There are other reasons, financial among them, why two males or two females may bond in marriage.
Just like there are other reasons, financial among them, that one male and one female may bond in marriage.
Heterosexual couples don't have to be straight.
And there are other reasons that a man and a woman may bond in marriage as well. Not sure what your point is.
Correct. The state simply doesn't give a crap about your reasons to marry, nor does it inquire as to your intent or ability to have sex.
Straight couples marry for a variety of reasons too, and there are many gays who have entered into opposite-sex marriages for various reasons.
"Heterosexual couples don't have to be straight."
If they're heterosexual they do :-)
Here let me fix it:
"Couple that appear hetersexual don't have to straight"
Straight people do it as well. I know a couple that only married so she could be covered by his health insurance. That's it. They both had a boyfriend/girlfriend (one version of an open marriage). They were not sexually attracted to each other.
BP,
Semantics, shmemantics. You got my point. ;)
"I do not think anyone has the right to place a child into a gay home"
As per 2011 data, there are over 400,000 children in foster care. Many of whom jump from foster home to foster home, most abandoned by their straight parents. Most just age out of the system, never finding a family of their own
I friend of mine adopted a child from foster care. This childs only concerns was to have a permanent family, with love & stability. A parent's sexual orientation was never an issue. Only adults are caught up with that, foster children are just looking for a loving home.
"IF" Homosexuals and Lesbians ever figure out that they have SERIOUS "body parts" configuration issues, which do not match or function or agree....then this group will EVENTUALLY seek the opposite sex for "NORMAL" marriage. But, hold on Pilgrims....as long as we have CONFUSION issues in teachings there is no "cure" or "sanity" in the growth of STRANGE behavior !
Sayin' it a respectfully as possible, since anything said contrary toward strange behavior is always considered "DISRESPECTFUL" ... buncha bunk !
Umm, gay people have been around for as long as our species has existed. And unless severely pressured by society, these people don't "eventually seek opposite sex".
Epic logical fail. But I guess you have met my expectations for you.
..."in March 1967, McConnell accepted with a condition that was utterly radical for its time"
How gratious of you. You ACCEPTED the decision of SCOTUS.
FYI: They are the law of the land. They have more power than the president.
I too accept that paying taxes I must. But one day...
Read the story again...he accepted Baker's proposal. It had NOTHING to do with SCOTUS at that time. Just that he wanted them to be married. That was what was utterly radical for that time. I know, as I posted above, because I'm of the same generation and a member of the gay community. Most of us were VERY closeted at that time in history.
Historically, marriage has been a contract between 2 men. The woman was merely the commodity traded.
Hey guys and gals....one thingie you've gotta admit -- the parts dont match up for "SAME GENDERS" ! So, what's up with folks TRYING to "DO IT" with body parts designed otherwise. But, heyyy, it seems certain genders try to surgically MODIFY the body parts .... and then, it really becomes STRANGE !! Comon' guys and gals, it just 'aint "NORMAL"
SIGH.
I enjoy oral sex quite a bunch, as does my wife. I don't see why it would be any less enjoyable if it were two guys or two gals, assuming you are into that.
Clearly, people are quite capable of "doing it" regardless of the gender combination.
NASTY ! Arrgggrrrrrrh ! Ewwwwww ! Spitueeeeyyyy ! Oh wait a minute....dogs sniff first too. LOL But wait a minute....we're not DOGS.
Ewwwww...sorry, already said that.
Oh, you are a vaginal sex only kind of guy. Sucks to be you. You have no idea what you are missing.
Secondly, even if people like sex in different ways than you, why in the world would that preclude them having the ability to marry?
What's your point? Plenty of straight couples engage in anal sex and like EngEsq mentioned, oral sex. I assume you're male, and if you mean to say you don't like receiving blowjobs, I call b.s. on that.
What do body parts have to do with equal rights? This isn't about sex. Get your mind out of the gutter, this is about inheritance, property rights, insurance, social security, pensions etc.
you gotta feel really sorry for holub's wife
Actually Holub its you that sounds a little insane and "off." Your wife (if you have/had) one is probably very frustrated.
Why have so many become sooooooo "CONFUZED" ....
I don't know why are you soooo STUUUPID?
The gays are gaining rights and thats great. Still being discriminated against are opposite sex couples living together who do not wish to get married.
Still being discriminated against are same sex couples living together ho do not wish to get married. That is a choice. If you want the rights that come from being married you have to enter into that contract.
What if my partner is collecting a sizable alimony check. Not really a (smart) choice.
If "NATURE" (ie animals, poultry, honey bees, insects, etc.) become as confuzed as SOME FOLKS, we will no longer have a food chain....Lets hope NATURE doesn't become confuzed.
Likely, this won't happen, since NATURE doesnt have confuzed teachings or attempts to modify that which is NORMAL....Just sayin'
Gay animals are found in many species. Like people it tends to follow a small, but relatively consistent, percentage of the population, and poses no threat to food supplies. Nice try though.
When you can open your eyes to realize gay marriage is much more than a 24/7 romp in the hay, perhaps you can make some intelligent observations. Your guttural interpretation of a same sex union holds no water..only hot air.
Why hasn't the " one " man " one " woman thing in DOMA been challenged yet ...the language is pretty clear ...one man.. one woman. ...nothing in there about multiple marriages and serial divorces ...if you really want to protect marriage ban divorces ..
The one man one woman has been challenged many times and is one of the two cases the SCOTUS agreed to hear last Friday. Get with the latest news.
To..anti"""
Sorry I had never heard of DOMA being challenged on the " one " "one " issue
That is why the administration stopped defending it. They determined that it is unconstitutional to make any law that defines marriage as "one man, one woman." It's not a case of one/one, but the actual definition within the DOMA law that has the two words "man" and "woman" after the word(s) "one." That should also be the basis upon which the SCOTUS should rule all 31 or so state constitutional amendments unconstitutional, because those laws all violate the US Constitution's equal protection clauses. All 1400+ laws on the books that give special benefits to "married" couples should also be invalidated by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional if they have created a "special class" of people eligible for those benefits...again the Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.
The only such laws that should be allowed to remain on the books are laws that define right of property ownership and medical care for any two people in a committed relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation or sex (since it should be open to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals seeking to share a committed relationship, with or without a "binding civil contract" which is what those "marriage" licenses are.
To Anti"""
Okay ..I was referring to the " one " "one"... as in only one man.. only one woman.. not multiple times as in multiple marriages and divorces
I think too many confuzed same gendered folks are "IN HEAT" .... and when they eventually find out that the OPPOSITE Gender works better, especially in MARRIAGE....it'll be a "match-up" and an amazing DISCOVERY.
Oh yeah, and you betcha' .... 1 man and 1 woman can make kids too .... and teach 'em nice normal things too ....
Your rants are getting boring Holub. Time to give it up and go have some sexual fun with whomever might be willing to give you some.
BTW, I WAS married to a woman for one day shy of 16 years just trying to satisfy societal demands. I've now been single for 26 years. I still prefer sex with another man, hehe.
If you and your views are considered normal, the child is MUCH better off with a same sex couple.
For someone so opposed to "gay sex", you sure seem to be fixated on it - why is that, do you suppose?
Its amazing....here comes the U.S.A. SUPREME COURT trying to "RULE" on a "CONFUSION" issue. How can that be done....when a "contrary" Islamic Law will be eventually enforced in America ? HUH HUH HUH ?
Wouldn't it be fun to watch if the Supreme Court had a couple of ISLAMIC JUSTICES involved. LOL....it'd be a knock down, drag out, slam bam, match. Oh yeah....
A "southern" fella "LOVED" his donkey, and sought legal grounds to marry it. As you may guess, he was denied. (true story) !!
Maybe the SUPREME COURT should place this in with all the other confuzion issues underway....Just sayin. Heyyy....why not ? After all, it's called "LOVE"
Well the courts decided this in North Carolina ...didn't get as much coverage as the Amendment one thing though some states do have their priorities.....
North Carolina —
Until 2005, bestiality was illegal in North Carolina; but then in 2005, the anti-bestiality law was ruled unconstitutional by the state court system, citing the fact that they infringed on people’s right to do what they want in the privacy of their homes.(even though the law is still on the books) it cannot be enforced.
Bible thumpers like Holub are the nutjobs who legalized bestiality in Texas.
After all is said and done it always comes down to money at the end of the day.
Anybody who opposes or opposed homosexual marriage (not union) is labeled as a "bigot" automatically by the fastest growing unions of America (The homosexual lobby). They are trying to make straight people who oppose gay marriage look silly by comparing their fight (to marry people of same sex) to that of human rights. IMHO, this gay marriage issue has nothing to do with human rights.
Essentially gay people want the society to accept that behavior as normal and allow marriage legally. Why stop there? why can't people marry anybody they want, anytime *multiple times, multiples partners*? what is wrong with that?
Supreme court will put an end to this gay marriage issue once in for all and that is because President Bush has put in place the right Chief Justice.
Times may change, but not values.
To..Logic """
Who told you that ...
So by that reasoning slavery would be just fine with you?
Logic:
Amen, and Amen ! Youre right.
Logic.....a misnomer if ever there was one.....This has everything to do with human rights. That is the crux of the entire question. What do you think it is all about?
To be blunt, gay people don't give a @!$%# about what YOU think or accept. They just want equality...and there is no I in equality.
I'll try to contain my laughter as the justice bush put it that you refer to is probably one of the biggest bigots in the land....not that i want to destroy your myth that bush was our greatest president.
Times do change. Perhaps it is time for you to come out of your warp and face the world of today where equality rather than intolerance rules the land.
p.s. holubs agreement with your words should be proof enough they are totally incorrect.
You do a great job of that without any help.
You mean the one that voted for Obama's health plan? John Roberts should be impeached. He wanted to find his place in history and he did. Eventually, it will come back to bite him in the ass.
Geeezzz
Not HUMAN RIGHTS silly Civil rights the ones that are written in the US Contitution. Try reading it sometime!
"You mean the one that voted for Obama's health plan? John Roberts should be impeached."
Why because he didn't do what YOU wanted..soo sorry not an impeachable offense. next
"He wanted to find his place in history and he did."
He found a place in history when he became a Supreme Court Justice. Next
"Eventually, it will come back to bite him in the ass."
How so? You going to bite him?
The above donkey story is somewhat funny, strange yes, true yes, but just typical of today's "LOVING" folks.
Yep....when one reads topics, interests, events of some folks....one has to wonder, have we redefined weird.
Pilgrims, dont worry, the SUPREME COURT may possibly normalize "abnormality".
It would still be better than allowing you to define it.
No we haven't redefined weird so don't worry you're still weird.
The question to you is why do you have to prosecute those you think are weird?
SUPREME COURT should stick to the Constitution. If it isn't mentioned there then it's up to someone else to figure out.
warren, it is mentioned in the Constitution. Our laws must protect everyone equally. That was the basis that allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state laws that said mixed-race couples were illegal.