True story, according to Gallup. The famous SCOTUS case Loving v. Virginia was decided in June of 1967 and Gallup polled people on the interracial marriage question of June of 1968.
There's been plenty of talk about legal precedents, but the precedent here that is interesting was that the Supreme Court churned out an objectively good ruling whose consequences were overwhelmingly opposed at the time. Much more overwhelmingly opposed than if same-sex marriage suddenly became the law of the land tomorrow.
Even if I didn't have this precedent, my point would be the same; courts aren't designed to rule according to popular opinion. They're designed to rule in favor of the most reasonable interpretation of the Constitution in light of a present day legal issue.
So you know what? I don't care if I were living in a United States where 73% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage. The courts are there to check the will of the majority as manifested through Congressional votes, state legislature votes, and state initiatives and propositions. That's always been the case with judicial review because we're a Republic whose Constitution delineates limits on legislative and popular power.
It's mostly wing nut asswipes who take issue with the role of courts in the U.S.—well, mostly when it comes to rulings they don't like—but I've even encountered so-called liberals who are wary about going through the courts because we've lost battles in some state legislatures or ballot initiatives. They're afraid it would "make us look bad."
As if dipshit social conservatives are going to make us look good if we do it the "right" way.
The legal case against same-sex marriage bans is incredibly straightforward:
- We are protected from arbitrary involvement by state governments into our private lives thanks to the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Enacting a law without substantive reasons beyond "lol it's immoral" has never been a sound basis for law-making and violates this clause. It certainly doesn't help that claims like "IT DESTROYS THE NUCLEAR FAMILY" not only can't be verified, they've been scientifically disproved.
- We are protected from states failing to guarantee the equal protection of the laws thanks to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A New Jersey state commission report determined that civil unions encourage unequal treatment of same-sex couples:
We, the thirteen members of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, unanimously issue this final report, containing a set of recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of New Jersey. After eighteen public meetings, 26 hours of oral testimony and hundreds of pages of written submission from more than 150 witnesses, this Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples.
- No law may respect the theological considerations of one religion over any other, which would constitute a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Ergo, religious objections to same-sex marriage are constitutionally invalid.
So you know what? As long as I've got these arguments on my side, I welcome any and every opportunity to fight for state recognition of the rights of others in a court of law. Because the natural rights of others cannot wait for public approval. Furthermore, it ain't just about challenging a stigma. It's about a remedying a disparity in benefits that has long persisted between heterosexual and same-sex couples. If we can win in the courts, which we objectively can, this shit can't wait.
Edit: Thanks to everyone who pointed out my glaring title fail that apparently wasn't glaring enough for my brain. Remedied.