They dared to love each other when the law said it was illegal.

In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a woman of African-American and Native-American decent, married Richard Loving, a white man. They were thrown in prison.

Believing that the United States Constitution guaranteed them the fundamental freedom to marry, they filed a lawsuit. That watershed case, Loving v. Virginia, was decided by the Supreme Court 46 years ago today.  The unanimous Court said:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. … Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Before she died, Mildred Loving wrote a heart-felt letter about how their historic case plays an important role today—in securing marriage for gay and lesbian couples:

“… I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving [v. Virginia], and loving [each other], are all about.”

The Loving decision is indeed one of 14 key precedents in AFER’s case against Prop. 8.

At the time, 20% of Americans believed it was okay to marry someone from a different race. Far different from the over 30 polls that have shown majority support for marriage equality.

Previously, AFER attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies recorded a short video to mark the case’s importance on AFER’s federal challenge to Prop. 8 (above).

The Loving’s quest for equality was also told in the moving documentary The Loving Story.

On March 26, our attorneys will defend a landmark victory: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, which happened one year ago today. Now, a year on, it’s impossible to overstate just how important that victory is.

You can go in-depth on the decision and read some of the best quotes here. But for a quick overview of why it mattered so much, here are the main highlights :

• This is the first time a federal appellate court has declared unconstitutional a law banning same-sex marriage and, in that context, explained why marriage is so important.
• The Court found that there was no legitimate reason to single out gay men and lesbians and deny them, and them alone, of the right to marry.
• The decision will give other states pause before attempting to repeal marriage equality laws.
• The unanimous decision to dismiss Proponents’ motion to vacate the judgment is the first time a federal appellate court has considered, and flatly rejected, a judge’s sexual orientation as a reason for disqualification.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.  The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort,” Judge Reinhardt wrote.

And that’s what we’ll defend on March 26th.

Watch some additional video highlights from the day of the ruling below:

80 findings of fact, based on empirical evidence and expert witness testimony speak to the nature of marriage and discrimination of gay and lesbian Americans. Here is one of them:

52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

Domestic partnerships, a separate system which gives many of the rights and protections of marriage to gay and lesbian Californians, is woefully inadequate in part because it lacks the social significance and meaning of marriage.

As Harvard Professor Nancy Cott, an expert on the history of marriage in the United States, testified:

“Marriage has been the “happy ending to the romance.” Marriage “is the principal happy ending in all of our romantic tales”; the “cultural polish on marriage” is “as a destination to be gained by any couple who love one another.”

AFER’s case challenging Prop. 8 is founded on three basic points.

1. Marriage is a fundamental right.
2. Gay and lesbian couples are harmed when they are denied that right.
3. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry hurts no one.

Since 1888, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

During the 2010 Prop. 8 trial, the first time a federal court heard testimony and evidence for marriage  equality, AFER lead co-counsel Ted Olson and David Boies called 17 witnesses –including experts in the social sciences, politics and psychology and several who talked about their personal experiences—to show the court the history and consequences of state-sponsored discrimination.

In a court of law, the arguments and evidence for marriage equality eviscerated any reason to deny loving couples the fundamental right to marry.  The courts have agreed every step of the way.

The Federal District court ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional in August 2010, and was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in February 2012.

Yet every day, youth in California are subjected to dangerous and abusive “treatments” by mental health practitioners who falsely claim that they can turn them straight.

These practices cause irreparable harm including increased risk of depression, social withdrawal, substance abuse, self-harm and suicide.

No youth should be told they are less than, or that they are not deserving of living a happy, fulfilled life.

Urge Gov. Jerry Brown to sign SB 1172, new legislation that would ban the practice of so-called conversion “treatment” for minors.

Sing the online petition at change.org and leave a message at the goverornor’s office:

1. Dial 916.445.2841
2. Press 1 to continue in English.
3. Press 6 to speak with a representative of Governor Jerry Brown’s office.
4. Voice your support for SB 1172, the bill banning dangerous psychological abuse of minors.

The legislation is authored by Senator Ted Lieu (D-Redondo Beach), and co-sponsored by Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gaylesta, Mental Health America of Northern California, Lambda Legal, and the Courage Campaign.

During the Prop. 8 trial, AFER called to the witness stand mental health professionals to demonstrate the opposition to such practices:

“[T]he American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association…. the major professional mental health associations have all gone on record affirming that homosexuality is a normal expression of sexuality, that it is not in any way a form of pathology.”

– Gregory Herek, Professor of Psychology, University of California, Davis

We also heard moving testimony from Ryan Kendell, who talked about his personal experiences.

I was a 16-year-old kid who had just lost everything he ever knew. I didn’t really know what to do. I was very lost. And so the next few years I wandered in and out of jobs. I wandered in and out of attempts at school. I was incredibly suicidal and depressed. I hated my entire life. At one point, I turned to drugs as an escape from reality and because I was, you know, trying to kill myself. So, no, things did not get better.

….

During this whole thing, my life had kind of fallen apart. … And I just couldn’t take any more. And I realized, at one point, that if I didn’t stop going I wasn’t going to survive.

Watch Chris Colfer recreate Ryan’s testimony at the Los Angeles premiere of “8,” Dustin Lance Black’s play about marriage equality based on the actual court transcripts of the trial.

We need to protect LGBT youth in California from the dangerous psychological abuse of “reparative” therapy. Urge Gov. Jerry Brown to sign SB 1172.

We talk often about how marriage is a civil right, affirmed by 14 Supreme Court cases dating back to 1888. But what about the importance of marriage throughout history?

As Harvard University History Professor Nancy Cott testified during the Prop. 8 trial:

“Marriage—the ability to marry, to say ’I do’—is a basic civil right.”

“[T]he fact that the state is involved in granting these kinds of benefits and legitimacy to the marital family tends to lend a prestige, a status to that institution that no informal marriage has ever approximated.”

Dr. Cott, who has written four books and a slew of peer-reviewed articles, is an expert  on the history of family, marriage and citizenship, and one of the nine expert witnesses Ted Olson and David Boies called to testify about the cultural, historical, economic, psychological and sociological importance of marriage equality.

The words Prof. Cott said under oath were performed in the Broadway and Los Angeles premieres of “8” by Yeardley Smith, an actress known as the voice of Lisa Simpson,  a shoe designer, and AFER donor.

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “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.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
10. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
11. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
12. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
13. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
14. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

On June 26, 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas.  The case involved two men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were arrested in Lawrence’s home and convicted under Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct” law.  (The story behind the Lawrence case is told in Professor Dale Carpenter’s new book, Flagrant Conduct.)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the Court:

“When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element of a personal bond that is more enduring.  The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

Lawrence is the fourteenth—and most recent—case in which the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.  In Lawrence, the Court recognized that

“persons in a homosexual relationship” enjoy “constitutional protection [for] personal decisions related to marriage,” “just as heterosexual persons do.”

At the heart of Lawrence is an understanding that the Constitution’s central protections of liberty, equality, and human dignity are guaranteed to all Americans.

In light of this truth, it is only logical to ask, “What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’?”  These words belong to Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case.

In AFER’s case against Prop. 8, the Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have each addressed Justice Scalia’s question.  Both have responded with the same answer: There is no justification for denying gay and lesbian Americans right to marry.  As the Ninth Circuit held:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

Three weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit declined to reconsider its landmark decision invalidating Prop. 8, paving the way for the Supreme Court to hear our case.  As we enter the final chapter of our fight against marriage inequality, AFER is mindful that our Constitution’s promise of liberty is one that every generation must realize.  As Justice Kennedy said in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific.  They did not presume to have this insight.  They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.  As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Photo: John Geddes Lawrence, right, and Tyron Garner.  Christobal Perez, Houston Chronicle.

They dared to love each other when the law said it was illegal.

In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a woman of African-American and Native-American decent, married Richard Loving, a white man. They were thrown in prison.

Believing that the United States Constitution guaranteed them the fundamental freedom to marry, they filed a lawsuit. That watershed case, Loving v. Virginia, was decided by the Supreme Court 45 years ago today.  The unanimous Court said:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. … Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

At the time, 20% of Americans believed it was okay to marry someone from a different race. Far different from the majority of Americans who support the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples today.

Last year AFER attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies recorded a short video to mark the case’s importance on AFER’s federal challenge to Prop. 8 (above).

The Loving’s quest for equality was also told in the moving documentary The Loving Story, which premiered on HBO this past Valentine’s Day.

In that case, Romer v. Evans, the Court invalidated a provision of Colorado’s Constitution—known as Amendment 2—that prohibited the state from protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination.  “[T]he Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,” the Court declared.  Amendment 2 clearly violated that principle: it was “unprecedented in our jurisprudence,” “not within our constitutional tradition,” and was “born of animosity” toward gays and lesbians.  “[I]f the constitutional conception of ‘equal protection of the laws’ means anything,” the Court concluded, “it must as the very least mean that a bare…desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

As a civil rights landmark, Romer is a key precedent in Perry v. Brown, AFER’s federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8.  As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in its recent opinion affirming that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional (pp. 44-45):

Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2.  Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single[s] out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status….”  Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place.  Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” because it “carves out” an “exception” to California’s equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee.  Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree…put[s] [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.”  And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time.  As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.