But the situation is NOT analogous, Ted Olson’s arguments notwithstanding. It was, and is, wrong to discriminate against blacks, or any other group, based on the color of their skin because that is an immutable characteristic.
One’s sexual lifestyle is not an immutable characteristic, but a lifestyle CHOICE. There are many possible lifestyle choices — are we now going to posit that from now on, whatever sexual proclivities and actions certain individuals want to participate in are beyond the power of a state to prohibit? Where will it end?
The issues aren’t the same but the optics are. The US Constitution and the federal courts - right or wrong - trump the Alabama Constitution and Alabama courts. That issue was settled at Appomattox. And if any state should attempt to reopen the issue, it ought not be Alabama given Alabama’s history.
(insert Michael Jackson joke here)
“There are many possible lifestyle choices — are we now going to posit that from now on, whatever sexual proclivities and actions certain individuals want to participate in are beyond the power of a state to prohibit?”
__________
The Love Ruling overturning a state law that forbad inter-racial marriage held that the state must have a compelling interest if it wants to regulate marriage. As morality has been ruled not to be a compelling interest, the argument against homosexual marriage has always been, “What is the state’s compelling interest in keeping two consenting adults from marrying each other?” As no one has been able to specify an aggrieved party-who get’s hurt?, than the compelling interest is hard to define.