[claystu]

Pace v Alabama was from 1883. Perez v Sharp was a California case from 1948--an odd case to cite since it had no controlling authority outside of California.

Regardless, Loving v Virginia (1967) was decided by unanimous decision--and that's back in the 60's--just three years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. I don't know of anyone seriously suggesting that the holding in Loving is in jeopardy today; it's literally the direct application of the 14th Amendment.

[morelisp]

Pace v. Alabama rejected equal protection as justification. Perez, then later Loving, are relevant because they overturn that on the basis of due process as well - Perez being the first, Loving being the highest. You can't get Loving on equal protection alone; you certainly can't get Obergefell or Lawrence.

The parent asked why equal protection is not sufficient to protect interracial marriage. I answered. You don't like the answers, either:

a) Make a legal argument. To the extent you agree with this current decision, "it's old" lends it strength. But "it's old" isn't actually a legal argument, despite what the Supreme Court thinks. (That's how you know their purported theories of jurisprudence are bullshit.)

b) Make a real moral argument not rooted in made-up shit like textualism - and admit moral arguments for abortion rather than hiding behind "this is just jurisprudence."