80
BARBARA A. LEE
The majority rejected the
Loving
analogy because “an historical survey
of Supreme Court cases concerning the fundamental right to marry . . .
demonstrates that the Court has called this right fundamental because of
its link to procreation.
76
In 2009, the D.C. Council enacted the Religious
Freedom And Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009 (Bill 18–482),
which adds a provision that: “Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2
people.
77
Race Versus Sexual Orientation Discrimination
In
Hernandez
, the New York case discussed above, the court addressed
the plaintiffs’ use of the
Loving
analogy as insufficiently similar to the his-
tory and political posture of the same-sex marriage movement, saying:
the historical background of
Loving
is different from the history
underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for cen-
turies — at first by a few people, and later by many more —
as a revolting moral evil. . . .
Loving
was part of the civil rights
revolution of the 1950’s and 1960’s, the triumph of a cause for
which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled
since our nation began.
It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treat-
ment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely rec-
ognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legis-
lature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation
Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the
76
.
77
.
1...,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79 81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,...304