Question: Which case changed the idea of marriage : Georgia v. Randolph or Loving v. Virginia?
Context: "Loving" is a 2016 historical drama film written and directed by Jeff Nichols.  The film tells the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, the plaintiffs in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision "Loving v. Virginia", which invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a cohabitation law of Florida, part of the state's anti-miscegenation laws, was unconstitutional.  The law prohibited habitual cohabitation by two unmarried people of opposite sex, if one was black and the other was white.  The decision overturned "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), which had declared such statutes constitutional.  It did not overturn the related Florida statute that prohibited interracial marriage between whites and blacks.  Such laws were declared unconstitutional in 1967 in "Loving v. Virginia". Interracial marriage is a form of exogamy that involves a marriage between spouses who belong to different races.  It was historically a taboo in the United States of America and outlawed in South Africa.  It was formally declared legal in the United States in 1967 when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case "Loving v. Virginia" that race-based restrictions on the set of individuals whom an individual is eligible to marry violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 415 (1793) , was a United States Supreme Court case continuing the case of "Georgia v. Brailsford" (1792).  Here, the court held that "upon a motion to dissolve that injunction, this court held that, if the state of Georgia had the title in the debt, (upon which no opinion was then expressed,) she had an adequate remedy at law by action upon the bond; but, in order that the money might be kept for the party to whom it belonged, ordered the injunction to be continued till the next term, and, if Georgia should not then have instituted her action at common law, to be dissolved." Loving is a 2016 British-American historical drama film which tells the story of Richard and Mildred Loving, the plaintiffs in the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision "Loving v. Virginia", which invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.  The film was produced by Big Beach and Raindog Films, and distributed by Focus Features.  The film takes inspiration from "The Loving Story" (2011) by Nancy Buirski, a documentary which follows the Lovings and their landmark case. Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional.  This ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in "McLaughlin v. Florida" and in 1967 in "Loving v. Virginia".  "Pace v. Alabama" is possibly the first recorded interracial sex court case in America. Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision "Loving v. Virginia" which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws remaining in sixteen U.S. states." In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were U.S. state laws banning interracial marriage, mainly forbidding marriage between non-whites and whites. Bernard S. "Bernie" Cohen (born January 17, 1934) is a politician and former Democratic member of the Virginia House of Delegates.  Along with attorney Philip J. Hirschkop, Cohen argued (as a volunteer cooperating attorney for the ACLU) in April 1967 for the petitioners Richard and Mildred Loving in the case of "Loving v. Virginia" before the Supreme Court of the United States.  In June 1967, the Court rendered its unanimous decision banning state laws against interracial marriage. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.  The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant consent rule" established in "United States v. Matlock", 415 U.S. 164 (1974), which permitted one resident to consent in absence of the co-occupant.
Answer: Loving v. Virginia