E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
“I Love My Husband”/”I Love My Wife”: The Legacy of Loving v. Virginia – by Way of Windsor
Linda McClain
Media coverage of the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s orders denying review of federal appellate court rulings striking down laws in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin barring marriage by same-sex couples and the recognition of such out-of-state marriages included a remarkable photo of newly-married couples at a rally in Salt Lake City, Utah. One man held a sign, "I love my husband." A woman held a sign, "I love my wife." These signs brought to mind Richard Loving’s poignant plea to his attorney, Bernard Cohen, who repeated it in his oral argument before the Supreme Court: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife, and it is just unfair that I can’t live with her in Virginia." The federal district court opinion striking down Virginia’s restrictive marriage opened with a lengthy quote from Mildred Loving, affirming the right to marry regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation, and speaking of generational changes as "the older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way." What struck me initially about United States v. Windsor was how Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas provided the template for Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, completing a significant trio of landmark opinions about the liberty and equality of gay men and lesbians. Given the deployment of Loving v. Virginia in the cascade of post-Windsor federal district and appellate court cases striking down state marriage laws, I now believe that perhaps the most significant line in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion for those post-Windsor developments is his caveat, citing Loving that: "State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons," a caveat characterized by many lower federal courts as a "disclaimer of enormous proportion."
In post-Windsor federal litigation, Loving features prominently as a core precedent for the fundamental right to marry. It also features as an analogous example of why state appeals to history and tradition do not suffice, since, as Justice Posner wrote in Baskin v. Bogan, tradition can be "good" or "bad," and "[t]radition per se . . . cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination – regardless of the age of the tradition." Loving also supports the theme of moral progress, or evolving understanding of constitutional guarantees, familiar from Kennedy’s own opinions (Lawrence and Planned Parenthood v. Casey). The federal district court in Virginia cited Loving in observing: "Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered." In affirming, the Fourth Circuit reiterated Windsor’s invocation of Loving. It observed that "[c]ivil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life" and "allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security." It concluded that "[d]enying same-sex couples" the choice of "whether and whom to marry" "prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance."
The Fourth Circuit’s closing words came to mind when I observed the joy in the faces of the newly-wed couples at the Utah rally – and their proclaiming "I love my husband" and "I love my wife" – and the many other depictions of happiness experienced by couples no longer excluded from marriage in Virginia and the other states affected by Monday’s Supreme Court orders. Posted
12:14 PM
by Linda McClain [link]