| | The case is also significant because it is about how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a legal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of different races. Thus the case redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of [[gay rights]] have cited this case in support of a right to marriage <ref> Coolidge, David O, Playing the Loving Card: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Analogy, BYU Journal of Public Law, 1998, 12 BYU.</ref> <ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving ''Lawrence''", Stanford Law School.</ref>, although opponents argue that this is not viable as the 'Loving' marriage was still between a man and a woman. | | The case is also significant because it is about how the United States defined marriage. Before 1967, a legal marriage could not be contracted in states with anti-miscegenation laws if the partners were of different races. Thus the case redefined what constituted a marriage. Some proponents of [[gay rights]] have cited this case in support of a right to marriage <ref> Coolidge, David O, Playing the Loving Card: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Analogy, BYU Journal of Public Law, 1998, 12 BYU.</ref> <ref>Pamela S. Karlan, "Loving ''Lawrence''", Stanford Law School.</ref>, although opponents argue that this is not viable as the 'Loving' marriage was still between a man and a woman. |