From Loving v. Virginia to Hollingsworth v. Perry, the battle for marriage equality

Rev. Sharpton explains why he sees marriage equality as a civil rights issue. "We must have freedom for everyone, or we have freedom for no one."

The line of attack has not changed over time. In the 1960s, as people battled for marriage equality, it was decried by critics as “abominable,” “distasteful,” and even “revolting.” Those traditionalists weren’t referring to same-sex marriage, but interracial marriage.

In 1967, one courageous couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, fought for their right to be wed, despite the many, even the religious, who argued against them. It was a battle that took them all the way to the Supreme Court, but the justices serving during the height of the civil rights movement had no trouble coming to a decision.

In a unanimous ruling, the court struck down the Virginia ban on interracial marriage that had forced the Lovings to leave their friends and family and move to a more accepting jurisdiction. As the ruling read, “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.”

Swap out “racial classifications” for “sexual orientation” and you have the argument supported by an increasingly large number of Americans.

Today, the Loving v. Virginia case came up again during the Supreme Court hearing, as pro-equality attorney Ted Olson sparred with Chief Justice John Roberts, as Roberts argued that “the label” of marriage was the only thing marriage equality supporters were seeking. “You insist on changing the definition of the label,” Roberts argued.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbdul El-Sayed tries to woo MAHA voters as Democrats seek inroads with RFK’s supporters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKratom-like substances are popping up in a typically benign supplement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP super PAC increases its spending for Sen. Jon Husted in tough Ohio race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRecords reveal tumultuous marriage between slain New York Times executive and wife

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFrom clean energy warrior to ‘wall of shame,’ James Talarico reverses on a fossil fuel money pledge

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCongressional staff planned official trip with luxury stops in Italy and France weeks before election

FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOpenAI CEO Sam Altman to skip congressional hearing on rogue AI agents

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKey DOJ lawyers departed Trump ‘grand conspiracy’ probe amid pressure to produce, source says

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump’s new AI chatbot often links to a site launched under Clinton 26 years ago

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAt MAHA summit, industry CEOs the movement once vilified take the stage

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThis Paralympian has two goals: Win medals and give away $500,000 to her teammates

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCornell rape allegation spotlights stringent New York state laws that have long drawn criticism

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDecades-old march dispute reignites in Northern Ireland, threatening political crisis

“You could have said in the Loving case, what–you can’t get married, but you can have an interracial union,” Olson responded. “Everyone would know that that was wrong, that the–marriage has a status, recognition, support.”

That’s why people like the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has supported marriage rights for same-sex couples for the better part of the last decade, consider marriage equality as a fundamental civil rights issue, not a religious one.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAbdul El-Sayed tries to woo MAHA voters as Democrats seek inroads with RFK’s supporters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKratom-like substances are popping up in a typically benign supplement

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP super PAC increases its spending for Sen. Jon Husted in tough Ohio race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSRecords reveal tumultuous marriage between slain New York Times executive and wife

FOR SUBSCRIBERSFrom clean energy warrior to ‘wall of shame,’ James Talarico reverses on a fossil fuel money pledge

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCongressional staff planned official trip with luxury stops in Italy and France weeks before election

FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane

FOR SUBSCRIBERSOpenAI CEO Sam Altman to skip congressional hearing on rogue AI agents

FOR SUBSCRIBERSKey DOJ lawyers departed Trump ‘grand conspiracy’ probe amid pressure to produce, source says

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump’s new AI chatbot often links to a site launched under Clinton 26 years ago

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAt MAHA summit, industry CEOs the movement once vilified take the stage

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThis Paralympian has two goals: Win medals and give away $500,000 to her teammates

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCornell rape allegation spotlights stringent New York state laws that have long drawn criticism

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDecades-old march dispute reignites in Northern Ireland, threatening political crisis

As he said Tuesday night on PoliticsNation:

Nearly five decades after the landmark decision in the Loving case, opposing interracial marriage seems practically unfathomable. One of the sitting justices on the court is in an interracial marriage.

The court may not be poised to announce a unanimous decision again, but the shifting tides of the American people may soon mean that those trying to stop the marriage equality battles of today will seem just as out of touch in another five decades.