loving had desired to marry mr. jeter that the case would not have come out the same way. we know that with certainty because baker against nelson rejected that very claim and it rejected that claim on the heels of loving where the gay couple who brought that 14th amendment loving claim relied on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he says the baker case did not involve a claimed classification based on just gender. here's what the plaintiffs in baker said. "there is no justification --" and this is throughout their jurisdictional statement, your honor, "there is no justification in law for the discrimination against ho homosexuals. appellants are being deprived of a basic right, the right to marry. as a result of this deprivation, they have denied numerous benefits awarded by law to others similarly situated -- for example childless heterosexual couples." this is clearly a case where they challenged the classification as one based upon sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the loving case would have been on all fours, and wo

loving had desired to marry mr. jeter that the case would not have come out the same way.know that with certainty because baker against nelson rejected that very claim on the heels of love wrg the gay couple who brought that 14th amendment loving claim relied on loving very heavily. we also they mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a classification based on sexual orientation. it was just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. there is no justification in law for the discrimination against homosexuals. apellants are being denied basic right to marry. they have been denied numerous benefits awarded to others similarly situated, for example, childless heterosexual couples. this was clearly a case where they challenged the classification as one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the loving case would have been on all fours and would have -- would have come out -- excuse me, could have come out -- baker case would have been on all fours with loving if it were a fact that same sex sexual relations pr

loving had desired to mary mr. jeter the case wouldn't come out the same way. we know that with certainty because baker against nelson rejected that claim and rejected that claim on the heels of building where the day couple who brought the 14th amendment claim rely on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the case did not involve the classification, claimed classification based on sexual orientation the was just gender. here is what the plaintiffs and baker said. there is no justification and this is true of the jurisdiction statement, your honor. there is no justification for this commission against homosexuals. of olives are being deprived of the basic right to marry as a result of this thing is been denied numerous benefits awarded by law to others similarly situated to a for example, childless heterosexual couples. this is clearly the case where they challenged the classification as one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. a loving case would have been on all fours, and what have come