scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
True.
I am glad you finally agree.
True.
I am glad you finally agree.
Well, let's put it this way, for the sake of argument, for most of the history prior to Massachusetts, it was between a man and a woman. And it only started when the courts forced it on us.
in the US, and that means absolutely nothing, since for much of history, especially in places like the US, men had a lot of power over women.
Wasn't the USSR even more anti-gay than the US, even back then? Or do I have my history wrong...WTF??!?!?!?!?!?!
Please, using language directly from the majority opinion, show where they based their decision on the old Soviet Union's constitution.....
This is about the most ignorant assertion in this entire thread...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia
In 1917, the Russian Revolution saw the overthrow of the Tsarist government, and the subsequent foundation of the Russian SFSR, the world's first socialist state, followed by the founding of the Soviet Union after the end of the civil war in 1922. The new Communist Party government eradicated the old laws regarding sexual relations, effectively legalising homosexual activity within Russia, although it remained illegal in other former territories of the Russian Empire. Under Lenin's leadership, openly gay people were allowed to serve in government. In 1933, the Soviet government, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, recriminalised homosexual activity with punishments of up to five years' hard labor. Following Stalin's death, there was a liberalisation of attitudes toward sexual issues in the Soviet Union, but homosexual acts remained illegal. Nonetheless, homosexual culture became increasingly visible, particularly following the glasnost policy of Mikhail Gorbachev's government in the late 1980s.
Completely irrelevant
You forgot to point out that before Loving, marriage was between a man and a woman, and after Loving, it was between a man and a woman.
And, as you pointed out, the will of the people was to keep it that way. But the Court decided that it is not that way at all. They decided that all the States were violating the Constitution for almost 150 years.
They removed that little limitation, and opened the flood gates.
Absolutely relevant as it shows things change. There is no guarantee that anything will remain the same, especially not something that has changed many times before and even changes between cultures.
The will of the people was to keep interracial couples from getting married. "One man and one woman" is just as arbitrary when it comes to our laws and how they function as "two people of the same race". There is nothing about legal marriage that changes when two people of the same sex are allowed to marry along with two people of the opposite sex because now, in this day and age, men and women spouses are treated the same in the laws of marriage.
That was the will of the lawmakers, like George Wallace, that wanted interracial marriage to be illegal. It was a constriction on marriage, not a full blown opening up to anything goes. It was the exact opposite of the court ruling.
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.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.
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
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 that’s 44 years after the Loving decision.
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.
Is freedom of Religion and Speech protected?
https://youtu.be/SqfCdVUH4WY
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?
Yes, actually most of the arguments were/are the same...
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
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.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
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.
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.
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.
None of your points above rebut anything I posted.
The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.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.
And Southern Democrats of the past are currently conservative Republicans...
Who is this "they"? It's not most of the citizens out there, that's for sure.
And of course politicians follow the herd on SSM like they do on all other issues. Politicians out in front and out of step with their constituents on big issues are AKA 'Losers.' The GOP will come around soon enough and it will be like supporting segregation or bans on interracial marriage.
Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations
The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.
LOL!!! You hace got to be kidding me! Boy, democrats will not take responsibility for ANYTHING! Yeah, when did Robert Byrd become a Republican? I don't remember that happening.View attachment 67186854
.
Wow, how absolutely foolish of you. That's what you choose to comment on, that it's a woman, not a man? As usual, zero substance. It doesn't matter, as I have shown, this case has nothing to do with SSM. Something you have been unable to challenge with any type of thoughtful argument. Just a flip comment about who is who.You know absolutely nothing about the Loving case. The first clue is the fact that you think it was a black man involved. No. Mr. Loving was white, Mrs. Loving was black.
Oh, how very nice of him. Klansman. Still got elected, time after time, democrats kept voting for him, until he died. Klu Klux Klan. Think the left would be okay with the Republican Majority leader being a former Klansman? I wouldn't be okay with that. Democrats were all to happy too keep voting for one. That was the best guy they could put up, a former Klansman? For shame.And the late Senator Byrd renounced the hateful things he did in the past, during the Civil Rights Era.
Awww... well that makes it all right then, doesn't it.So, no Sen. Byrd ended up just renouncing the "Southern Democrat" ways.