Page 187 of 193 FirstFirst ... 87137177185186187188189 ... LastLast
Results 1,861 to 1,870 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1861
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The vast majority of the public believed in 1968 that interracial marriage should be illegal. That was not just those like George Wallace. This was polled and the results showed that a much higher majority of the public, of people then wanted to ban interracial marriages than the amount of the public we currently have that want to ban same sex marriages. In fact, more of the public then wanted to ban interracial marriages than many of the bans on same sex marriage passed on, especially the most recent ones. Hell, it didn't even reach a majority of the population approving of such relationships until the 1980s.

    Do Americans unanimously support interracial marriage? | theGrio
    Is there a point? It's apples and oranges. the arguments, for and against interracial marriage are not the same as SSM. I don't know why you insist on comparing the two, they are dissimilar. The reason to allow one is not a reason to allow the other.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  2. #1862
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Is there a point? It's apples and oranges. the arguments, for and against interracial marriage are not the same as SSM. I don't know why you insist on comparing the two, they are dissimilar. The reason to allow one is not a reason to allow the other.
    Yes, actually most of the arguments were/are the same, both for and against. And the reasons to allow them are pretty much the same as well. Two people want to get married, who at the time were not allowed by the law simply because some people (the majority at least at the time of the enactment of the laws) did not approve of those relationships. In neither case is the state able to show any legitimate state interest (protecting people, promoting the general welfare, protecting liberty, etc.) furthered by restricting marriage based on those things. In both cases the laws can easily be struck down without any actual functional changes to marriage being necessary.

    Parallels Between Opposition of Gay Marriage and Interracial Marriage - Black Listed - EBONY

    Arguments used against interracial marriage:

    It is bad for the children
    God doesn't approve (the first judge ruling against the Lovings said something very much like this)
    the 14th was never meant to be used in this manner/matter
    Relationships prone to divorce/not being monogamous

    Arguments against same sex marriages

    It is bad for the children
    God doesn't like it
    The 14th was never meant to be used in this matter/manner
    The relationships don't last, are more likely to end in divorce

    And there was simply no doubt back then that the people didn't really support interracial marriages, something that was tried against same sex marriage
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #1863
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,547

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The vast majority of the public believed in 1968 that interracial marriage should be illegal. That was not just those like George Wallace. This was polled and the results showed that a much higher majority of the public, of people then wanted to ban interracial marriages than the amount of the public we currently have that want to ban same sex marriages. In fact, more of the public then wanted to ban interracial marriages than many of the bans on same sex marriage passed on, especially the most recent ones. Hell, it didn't even reach a majority of the population approving of such relationships until the 1980s.

    Do Americans unanimously support interracial marriage? | theGrio
    Got to love Mississippi. Trying hard to stay stuck in the 1950s.....

    For example, 46 percent of Mississippi Republican voters believe that interracial marriage should be against the law, while only 40 percent believe it should be legal. And thatís 44 years after the Loving decision.
    BTW, here's the quote from the Loving trial judge:

    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.

  4. #1864
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Posts
    555

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Is freedom of Religion and Speech protected?
    https://youtu.be/SqfCdVUH4WY

  5. #1865
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by JFish123 View Post
    Is freedom of Religion and Speech protected?
    https://youtu.be/SqfCdVUH4WY
    He's wrong. Try telling an interracial couple or atheist couple that you refuse to bake a cake for their wedding or serve pizza to go for their wedding. It is against the law to do this. It will be seen as violating laws based on not being allowed to discriminate based on race or religion.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #1866
    Guru
    Verthaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    09-08-16 @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,044

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Is there a point? It's apples and oranges. the arguments, for and against interracial marriage are not the same as SSM. I don't know why you insist on comparing the two, they are dissimilar. The reason to allow one is not a reason to allow the other.
    How are the two arguments dissimilar?
    What makes the arguments different?

  7. #1867
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Verthaine View Post
    How are the two arguments dissimilar?
    What makes the arguments different?
    They are two completely different things. In one situation a man and a woman are being prevented from getting married because of race. Marriage is still between a man and a woman, no one is trying to change marriage, it was between a man and a woman, as always, before and after.

    In the other, people want marriage itself changed, expanded to include different mixes of genders, no longer just a man and a woman.

    Of course, this is quite obvious, but the left needs to ignore facts to advance their agenda, and that's all this is about. If they thought it would work in their favor to switch their beliefs, they'd do it tomorrow.

    Just like Obama did when they decided he'd get more money to no longer believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Jusy played you guys like a fiddle.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  8. #1868
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Yes, actually most of the arguments were/are the same...
    Arguments used against interracial marriage:

    It is bad for the children
    So is too much TV...

    God doesn't approve (the first judge ruling against the Lovings said something very much like this)
    the 14th was never meant to be used in this manner/matter
    Applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.

    Relationships prone to divorce/not being monogamous
    Another one, applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.

    And there was simply no doubt back then that the people didn't really support interracial marriages, something that was tried against same sex marriage
    Those southern democrats again, probably the same ones that filibustered the civil rights bill, maybe even that democrat klansman, Majority leader, Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd.

    But, all this is really getting away from the issue of the activities of the Court.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  9. #1869
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,547

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    So is too much TV...



    Applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.



    Another one, applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.


    Those southern democrats again, probably the same ones that filibustered the civil rights bill, maybe even that democrat klansman, Majority leader, Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd.

    But, all this is really getting away from the issue of the activities of the Court.
    LOL. Now the GOP has them. Almost half of republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial should be ILLEGAL, not just frowned on but prohibited same as SSM.

  10. #1870
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    So is too much TV...

    Applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.

    Another one, applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.

    Those southern democrats again, probably the same ones that filibustered the civil rights bill, maybe even that democrat klansman, Majority leader, Exalted Cyclops, Robert Byrd.

    But, all this is really getting away from the issue of the activities of the Court.
    None of your points above rebut anything I posted. TV is not being banned by law from children because it might be bad for them, yet that argument was used as to why same sex couples and interracial couples should not have been allowed to marry legally. Those other "mixes of marriages" haven't been banned due to the reasoning that God doesn't like it or the 14th doesn't apply or that they are more likely to end or not remain monogamous (in fact, where any such reasoning comes up, those types of marriages haven't been banned by US or state laws, so it is irrelevant in the terms of the law).

    And Southern Democrats of the past are currently conservative Republicans, the majority of those against same sex marriage now as well. Not recognizing the changes in society that occur with time doesn't change the facts. Of course, those Southern Democrats of the past do not account for "over 70% of the population". This wasn't some insignificant portion of the population. They aren't the only ones either. Even today we can see that there are those who do not approve of the idea of a white person being with a black person. It may be less common to actually hear people say they should be legally prevented from being together, but there are plenty of people who still consider it wrong for them to be together.

    And when those reasons I gave are the reasons the state claimed in Court that it was in their interest to maintain bans based on either race or sex, then that is why it absolutely does relate to this issue and the activities of the Court.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •