by 1954, the court had already ruled in cases involving race and discrimination. the most famous in brown v. board which the court held it was unconstitutional. so why wait until 1967 to hear the case about interracial marriage. here are all of the states that had laws on the books. banning interracial marriage. by 1967 only 16 states still had the laws on the books. . in the decades between 1947 and 1967 the years the supreme court was staying mom on the issue, most states decided on their own. the court was following on their heels, following the heels of public opinion. this is a big debate in the legal world. the supreme court influenced by american public opinion? these are nine people who could
after brown v. board of education when they are handing out these orders extending the principle at public accommodations. but it has a marriage case and gets rid of it and says this is too soon. and so it sits 11 years later to take it up. many of us thought this is exactly what s going to happen with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it s going to go back. it s going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. so what are the implications the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question e could they resolve? the doma case is a much more easy case. all it does is to return congress to its original
pew has been asking the question since 1996. when 65% of people were against same-sex marriage. by october of this year, 49% were for marriage equality while 40% opposed it. one more set of numbers. gallup released its own polling on same-sex marriage this week. 53% of people polled support legalizing same-sex marriage. which ties a previous record high. but look inside the poll. among young people 18 to 29-year-olds, 73% say they think same-sex marriage should be recognized. 73%. here s the question. the court is choosing to rule now. are the justices looking at the trends and saying we need to use our power, our installation from public opinion to put a stop to this or are they looking at the trends and seeing a chance to join history, to become the court that says gay marriage is protected under the
recognized. 73%. here s the question. the court is choosing to rule now. are the justices looking at the trends and saying we need to use our power, our installation to public opinion to put a stop to it or are they looking at the trends and seeing a chance to join his ri. to become the court that says gay marriage is protected under the constitution. joining us is the chief justice professor at constitutional law at nyu. thank you for being here. that s a great title. my question is simple. why now? the court is a passive institution. it can t reach out and grab cases. but there s an additional layer. why didn t the court say we re not going to review this case? one of the cases that we didn t look at in your excellent introduction is a case right after brown v. board of education when they are handing out these orders extending the principle at public
here s the question. the court is choosing to rule now. are the justices looking at the trends and saying we need to use our power, our installation from public opinion to put a stop to it or are they looking at the trends and seeing a chance to join this. to become the court that says gay marriage is protected under the constitution. joining us is the chief justice professor at constitutional law at nyu. thank you for being here. that s a great title. my question is simple. why now? the court is a passive institution. it can t reach out and grab cases. but there s an additional layer. why didn t the court say we re not going to review this case? one of the cases that we didn t look at in your excellent