Editing Federal Marriage Amendment (section)

===The United States Constitution and federal courts===
Federal courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to place some limits on states' ability to restrict access to marriage. In ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'', the United States Supreme Court overturned state marriage laws that barred interracial marriages on the basis that marriage is a "basic civil right..." and that "...the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The Supreme Court struck down a 1992 Colorado constitutional amendment that barred legislative and judicial remedies to protect homosexuals from discrimination solely on the basis of their sexual orientation in ''[[Romer v. Evans]]''.

In 1972, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] dismissed, "for want of a substantial question," an appeal by two men who unsuccessfully challenged Minnesota's marriage statutes in state court. Because the case, ''[[Baker v. Nelson]],'' came to the Court through mandatory appellate review (not ''[[certiorari]]''), the summary dismissal established ''Baker v. Nelson'' as a binding precedent.<ref>Project, ''Developments in the Law: The Constitution and the Family,'' 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1156, 1274 (1980) (discussing ''Baker's'' posture as precedent); ''see, e.g.'' Pamela R. Winnick, Comment, ''The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda,'' 76 Colum. L. Rev. 508, 511 (1976); ''Baker v. Nelson,'' 409 U.S. 810 (1972).</ref>

In 2010, the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] ruled<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/Life/gaymarriage.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=August 5, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614223900/http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/Life/gaymarriage.pdf |archive-date=June 14, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> that Proposition 8, passed two years earlier by a majority of voters, was unconstitutional. As in Judge Baitaillon's decision about the Nebraska law, Judge [[Vaughn Walker]] stated in his ruling that moral opposition to same-sex marriage is not sufficient reason to make a law valid. Judge Walker ruled the law violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, as well as the Due Process Clause. The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]], which affirmed the lower court's decision on February 7, 2012.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hagan |first=Robyn |url=https://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circuit/2012/02/perry-v-brown-ninth-circuit-says-prop-8-is-unconstitutional.html |title=Perry v. Brown: Ninth Circuit Says Prop 8 is Unconstitutional - Civil Rights Law - U.S. Ninth Circuit |publisher=Blogs.findlaw.com |date=February 7, 2012 |access-date=October 14, 2013}}</ref> On June 26, 2013, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling for lack of jurisdiction. Two days later the Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay of the district court's ruling, allowing same-sex marriage to resume in California.<ref name="latimes.com">[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-gay-marriage-20130628,0,1889039.story Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules]</ref> In 2015 the Supreme Court held in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' that the government could not refuse to recognize same-sex marriage.