those issues impartially based on the law. and i also think we have to talk about the human element here. we have talked a lot about interracial marriage. it s striking when we talk about whether the country is there or not on interracial equality. we look at the time where the supreme court decided loving vs. virginia it, had 20% approval and 73 disapproval. that s dramatically different than where pup opiniblic opiniow on gay marriage. i wouldn t say we re in a situation where we have an arc bending toward justice. we re on an acceleration curve toward justice. i m not only an openly gay member of congress, i m the first openly gay member of color. my brothers have married outside the race. and 64 years ago in california,
addicting hundreds of years of juris prudence, we only involve in one direction, toward greater equality and greater in collusion, the acknowledgment to loving vs. virginia, is right on point. the supreme court managed to come back to the reinvague ration of principles of equal justice under law and due process and open the door a little wide everr. we were debating marriage equality in new york. there were a lot of arguments about its effect on religious institutions it it doesn t create problems for religious institutions or opposite sex marriages. they were down to this argument that the state has an interest in pro creation that somehow we ll be damaged. that argument, literally laughter in the court during that part of the argument.
and just uphold the law in california. allow california to go forward with same-sex marriage and not provide a greater ruling, the loving vs. virginia moment is coming. the other side is out of arguments. i want to follow on that if as jonathan suggests there is an off-ramp that the supreme court takes what does that do to momentum in terms of marriage equality? the gay rights community? is that seen as defeat, stoke the fire, what s your read? look, every delay, every day that couples are denied the freedom to marry is real harm to couples. an insult to their commitment and love.
addicting hundreds of years of juris prudence, we only involve in one direction, toward greater equality and greater in collusion, the acknowledgment to loving vs. virginia, is right on point. the supreme court managed to come back to the reinvague ration of principles of equal justice under law and due process and open the door a little wider. we were debating marriage equality in new york. there were a lot of arguments about its effect on religious institutions it it doesn t create problems for religious institutions or opposite sex marriages. they were down to this argument that the state has an interest in pro creation that somehow we ll be damaged. that argument, literally laughter in the court during that part of the argument. we re at the point where neither this case or if they do duck it
when it comes to this issue, it comes down to you you said abortion, people are thinking about a 1967 case, loving vs. virginia in which they said it s legal for people of different races to marry. is it the case that a gay couple has the same rights as a heterosexual couple. a narrow ruling would be seen as dodging the issue, kicking the can down the road. is it your constitutional right to marry the person of your choice in this country? this is an issue that is the way that the proponents of gay rights are putting it before the court is let s look at the states and allow the states to make the decision and if that s the case, i think they are backing away from the larger issue. the larger issue has to be that the court would say it s constitutional or not. chris: what about the argument that happened in abortion and obviously if you re pro choice you think that was