the US Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage laws in 1967, does that foreshadow gay marriage laws?

It is hard to imagine bans on gay marriage being upheld in view of loving ( Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) if you are interested), but not impossible. In looking at the loving issue, the court decided that marriage was a basic civil right and that the law had racist intent. Both racist laws and laws that limit basic civil rights are subject to "strict scrutiny". Strict scrutiny involves a three-prong test, the law must serve a compelling government interest, it must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and there must be no less restrictive way of achieving that interest.

The problem here is that sexual orientation is not recognized as a one of the "protected classes" for the sake of discrimination law by the federal government ( though it is by some states.) It is not, therefore, treated like race, religion, color, age, etc. To judge such laws against gay marriage would probably only be subject to intermediate scrutiny (furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest.) or even the rational basis test ( the lowest level of scrutiny.

On the other hand, marriage as a basic right still warrants strict scrutiny so anti-gay marriage laws should fail simply on that basis. However, this is were the importance of the definition of marriage comes in to play. If one can define marriage as a man and woman, then gay "marriage" wouldn't fit. Some more conservative judges may even try to define it in terms of the ability to produce children ( though this creates other problems for the older or the barren, keeping them from marring on the basis of that would kick in strict scrutiny again as they are arguably protected classes.)

If you are interested in constitutional law, Loving makes an interesting case study.

The two issues are completely different. The challenge in Loving v. Virginia was based on the equal protection clause. Courts view classifications based on race with much suspicion and, in almost all cases, strike down laws that discriminate based on race. Courts don't view classifications based on sexual preference in nearly the same way, which means the Supreme Court especially is likely to approach the question of gay marriage in a much different way than it dealt with the laws that prohibited interracial marriages. That said, it's hard to predict exactly how the courts will decide anything.

You are perceptive about the problems with what amounts to bigotry. Society generally dictates its standards. The racial barriers were falling and society was going through a period of rebellion against authority in general. The younger generations (which includes today's Baby Boomers, now entering retirement) saw racial prejudice as being extremely unfair. WW II had changed our outlook on a number of matters and with the end of McCarthyism's Communist Under Every Rock, the deceptive practices in what was really happening in the killing fields of Viet Nam made a very large difference.

But marriage was still between a man and a woman. It is just that race no longer was an issue.

Today, I'm not sure what to think. One part of me wants to believe that we need equality in all civil unions, regardless whether religion is involved or not, which means striking down any laws the prohibit civil unions between any two people. As to whether that can be forced upon religion or not, that is where I have problems. We cannot abrogate one group's rights in favor of another group's rights. If a group wants to have a religious ceremony that end in a union they identify as marriage, let them, but make sure the laws are the same for all such unions, religious or not.

In other words, I am seeing a fanatical push on the part of many gays to shove their life style in the face of any who oppose them. Their behavior over the results of Prop 8 in California was disgusting and rather than let the courts handle the issue, or pressure California for equality in any kind of civil union (and all religious marriages are also civil unions) they wanted to destroy those who voted for the change in wording regarding marriage. That fanaticism has led to the claim of homophobia, which is _not_ a hatred, but a _fear_ (a phobia is a fear) of homosexual alignment. Yes, hatred is wrong and yes, it is very similar to the racial hatred as expressed by bigots. That bigotry still exists, just as the bigotry toward gays will still exist for a long time to come. As long as a significant and noisy group of gays are just as bigoted, then there will be trouble in River City.

As to why people can't just get along, it seems to be a human condition to hate and not want to change. As a result, yes, laws must be passed, but those laws often do not work very well and we have a political mess of extremists (on both sides of the isle) who will not work together for the betterment of all of us.

What will the outcome of the Prop 8 decision ultimately be? Who knows. I hope it becomes a federal issue (which means it has to go to the Supreme Court) so that states cannot make certain types of unions illegal while neighboring states allow them.

The similarities are striking. The arguments have the same problem- they want to tell people who they can and can't love. Well, that's just dumb. There's no way the anti-gay-marriage laws are going to hold up for long, and thank God for that.

I doubt it with this supreme court. They seem too skewed to the right. This is more likely to happen through the legislature or on a state-by-state bias, as the older generation dies off and the younger, generally more gay-friendly generation reaches voting age.

I was able to save my marriage thanks to my family and friends. I also read a lot about marital issues and tips on how to save your relationship. The ebook on this site helped me a lot http://savemarriage.toptips.org/

Check it out it's worth it.

If you read the Judges ruling in the CA federal case you will see the arguments that will be used to try to strike it down.

It basically says that both mothers and fathers are no longer are important in our society and kids can adapt to any situation selfish parents want to throw them in and there is no societal benefit for upholding the concept that our society is best served by upholding this ideal that both a mother and father should try to raise a child together in a loving stable environment.

So people, have as many kids as you want with as many diff partners as you want and in any arrangement you want, because kids will adapt and our society will be better for all those selfish adults that care more about themselves then their kids best interest.

i hope that shortly, all gays with be free to marry anywhere they want with no penalty. i hope, and feel strongly that this is coming.

Yep. Exactly.