Because I'll Be Seeing Him in Nine HoursA quick post on Prof. Michael Klarman's thought regarding Brown v. Board and Lawrence v. Texas as judicial activism/ riding the wave of popular opinion. (I only know what was reported here, so if I'm mischaracterizing, I apologize.)
Although the Lawrence decision avoided the issue of gay marriage -- just as Brown avoided interracial marriage -- Klarman predicted the Court eventually would deem classifications by sexual orientation unconstitutional, as public support for gay rights continues to increase.The more I hear from people actively opposing same-sex marriage, the more I'm convinced that it's not classifications by sexual orientation, but classifications by gender, that will have to fall in order to perceive bans on SSM as unconstitutional.
Perhaps those agitating against the Equal Rights Amendment back in the day were right: an Amendment to the Constitution that said classifications could not be made on the basis of gender essentially would mean that classifying unions based on the gender of the participants would be unconstitutional.
Also, I'm not sure why Brown would have mentioned interracial marriage. It was about kids in elementary and secondary school, not exactly the time to talk about gettin' hitched.
Lawrence, however, centered on the important of the state's not interfering in meaningful intimate relationships, which dings the MARRIAGE bell in my mind.