SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Please cite anything that says the relationship the Lovings had was not a marriage.

 

False, and even if that were true it doesn't even address my point (per usual from you). Marriage has changed, and it means and has meant many different things to different people across time and cultures and even within them.

 

Traditional marriage also includes men marrying underage girls, polygamy, incest, and female submission to the male. Those types of marriage have been tradition for as long as marriage has existed. Your appeals to tradition are just more double standards.

 

The Virginia law that prohibited them from being recognized as married of course. As far as the law is concerned, the definition of marriage is who the states allow to get married. The Virginia law excluded interracial couples from marriage.

A quote from the judge in the case:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."[/U]

I don't think it could be any more obvious.

 

No one claimed otherwise, so not sure of your point.

That would be the case with ANY TWO consenting adults. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.

What is nonsense is insisting that gays be allowed to marry because they might choose to adopt, use in-vitro fertilization or a surrogate mother to obtain a child, while insisting that marriage cant be limited to opposite sex couples as the ONLY couples with the potential of procreation, because not all opposite sex couples procreate.

1000s of years of marriage in human civilization and all the US's history of marriage laws shows otherwise.

 

What you quote is ambiguous. It can be interpreted to mean ANY cohabitation in Virginia was ipso facto regarded as a marriage, but it can also be interpreted to mean specifically that interracial cohabitation is regarded as a marriage. Or (I'm not a lawyer) perhaps it's saying that it was illegal to try to get around Virginia's law against interracial marriage by going somewhere else to marry, and then returning.

But I agree with your conclusion. According to the decision, the Lovings were convicted of being married. Not of getting married.

I do note that there's nothing in what you quoted explicitly referring to the union of a man and a woman. That wasn't even on the radar - it was taken for granted. And as you're aware, there were no explicit laws against same-sex marriage anywhere until fairly recently. People of the same sex had no illusions about getting legally married, so they didn't bother to try. Laws are almost invariably passed only in response to behaviors that seem in need of regulation. Nobody passes any laws against something it has never occurred to anyone to try to do. It wouldn't occur to them either. Just as there were no laws against skateboarding until the skateboard was invented. It would seem foolish to argue that THEREFORE skateboarding was traditionally discouraged or disallowed.

And so when same-sex couples DID start trying to marry, only then did conservatives wake up and start prohibiting it. It was something new and different. Completely harmless, but conservative people tend to see ANY change as a threat. And they tend to see minorities as a threat. And they tend to see differences in orientation as a threat. Combine these (different orientation of a minority desiring a change), and it's a triple threat. Harmless, of course, but conservatives don't much care about that.

 

Had they not cohabitated in Virginia, they wouldn't have violated the statute.

 

Actually, the statute itself recognized the out of state marriage and treated it as if it was a marriage conducted in Virginia.

"and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State."

 

If you care so deeply about the issue of incestuous marriage, why don't you go campaign for it?

Incest isn't a sexual orientation. The arguments for same sex marriage all revolve around the concept of sexual orientation.

Even if incestuous marriage was a right if all human beings, getting closer to retire equality by granting that right to a different group wouldn't necessarily be bad, just incomplete.

I don't think you understand though. You aren't arguing against gay marriage. You're just arguing for incestuous marriage.

 

lol, I see - you didn't understand what I was referring to; why didn't you say so? I'm happy to help you out. I'll use your method:

The ACTUAL question I was referring to [an open question to all users here]

The question was asking whether you are directly affected / why you care if gay folk want to be married or be classed as parents (and not whether it's constitutionally incorrect/correct to include/exclude them, which was, at least, part of your answer). You can pick from various answers below [and fill in the rest]:

A) I also don't care. It doesn't bother me [Add more if you feel like it]
B) I DO care and it bothers me because [add your reasons here]
C) Some insult.
D) Something else that doesn't answer the question.


I guess I should have made it a poll instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, going WAAAAAAY of the reservation, but it kinda followed on from the comment from Dixon that gays would have more rights to marry than cousins, which I was pandering to for kicks.

 

What I quoted was the legal decision and the actual state code used to convict the Lovings. The title of it is "Punishment for marriage," and it goes on to describe white/colored marriage as a felony. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

That is the whole point. The definition was taken for granted. It had only one understood meaning. Making it something other than a union between a man and a woman requires a change to that understood definition.

That's not true. Richard Baker and James McConnell tried getting married in Wisconsin in 1970, on the heels of the Loving decision. States didn't have to worry about codifying the definition until present-day activist judges started changing the definition of marriage. Will the Supreme Court change that definition for the whole country? We'll have to see, but if they do it will be unprecedented.

We aren't talking about skateboarding in the absence of skateboarding prohibitions. We are talking about people wanting their relationship to be sanctioned as marriage by the state when that relationship does not fit the definition of "marriage."

Opinion... opinion... opinion... All arguments to make in the state where you want to redefine marriage. I disagree with your own biased take on conservative motives, but it's beside the point. Marriage is what it is, and the Supreme Court should not redefine it for them.

 

Except that I just showed how the Lovings were convicted of being married. The definition remained consistent, the state punished them for doing it. I don't think it could be any more obvious.

 

For the 50th time, NO ONE is suggesting closely related couples engage in incest. Thats a crime in 49 states.

 

Sooooo full of it. So now your claiming you didnt mean the question you directed towards me yesterday, and instead mean the question you directed to YGUY a frickin week ago. So full of it. And I answered that question as well.

 

I wasnt making an appeal to tradition to argue what should be and instead point to tradition as evidence of what IS.

 

Aaaaaaand my point was that the single defining feature, HUSBAND and WIFE has been consistent throughout time, around the world.
Matrimony, Latin root of the word MATER, MOTHER! ONLY women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

Yes you are making an appeal to tradition and you keep doing so. When you say something should remain the same because it has been that way for thousands of years, that is appeal to tradition fallacy. You can keep saying "I am just saying what IS", all you want, but that in fact is appealing to tradition.

 

Dig up a white power book, flip to the part where the author claims blacks are not really human - then check out any comment on inter-racial "marriage" following it. Or, remember back to just about any protest about this case in the 60's and recall even half the crap coming out of the mouths of the staunch supporters of 'sanctity of marriage' of that time.




​

 

lol, the question was only being reiterated to YGUY, but was asked to EVERYONE in this closed post [below] and continued in this thread. But YOU replied to me, so you were answering a question posed to YGUY anyway, so I took it from there. That is allowed. I reply to people all the time who are in a conversation with someone else on this forum.

Original Question:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407379&p=1064985054#post1064985054

Reply to that in this post that brought it back alive again:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407226&p=1064986549#post1064986549

That might make it a lot clearer for you. Probably not. In any case, I now understand why that was your answer. It didn't make sense at the time - I didn't see them getting special treatment just because they would get the same as everyone else, but you then pointed out that cousins can't marry, so I now understand why it affects you. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Again, this seems ambiguous. I thought we had agreed that what same-sex couples had was real marriage in every sense of the concept EXCEPT government licensing. I thought we agreed that, accordingly, what marriage IS isn't being redefined, only the legal posture with respect to certain marital relationships. So the Supreme Court isn't being asked to actually change anyone's relationship, only the legal status of that relationship.

Let me try an example that might not poke the wrong buttons. Imagine that skydiving were illegal, but plenty of people were doing it anyway. Imagine that the law prohibiting skydiving were challenged. If the courts found that these laws improper, they would NOT be "redefining" skydiving. They'd only be making it legal. The actual process of skydiving (or in this case, marriage) wouldn't be changed at all.

The opposition to same sex marriage is not preventing or altering same sex marriage at all, and never has. The idea seems to be, if we deny it exists and sweep it under the rug, somehow reality changes. It does not. Granting legal recognition to what exists doesn't change the nature of what exists. You are correct that marriage is what it is. You are wrong that it's being altered or redefined in any way. It's only being legally recognized.

 

But I never said any such thing. Show us your not full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and copy and paste any such post of mine.

 

You posted this less than 5 hours ago...

You also had some random babble about Latin words and definitions that have no relevance to current culture.

 

???? Of course its being redefined, LITERALLY. Dictionary definitions of marriage have been changed to reflect this redefinition. In your silly sky diving analogy, no change to the dictionary definition would be required.

 

You seem to have missed the complete absence of any argument saying "something should remain the same because it has been that way for thousands of years". We were having a discussion of what changes of marriage have occured in the past and what changes have not occured. Specifically, the defining feature of marriage being between a man and a woman has remained consistent throughout history and around the world, that has NOT changed. AND SINCE the debate is what has occured in the past, I point to historical evidence from the past. NOT an argument of what should be but instead an agrument about what has been in the past.

For instance, in response to Liberalis claim,

I could have instead presented from BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

and current day Texas law

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

To show that many aspects have remained exactly the same. There is no argument as to what should be and is instead showing what has in fact been the reality of the past.

 

And once again, for those arguing for a "tradition"...