What argument? All race-based restrictions on marriage are illegal; bi-raciality (is that a word?) of children is a racial restriction. Not to mention incredibly freaking bigoted *shudder* (and incredibly freaking stupid .... does the moronic JOP think they give out sperm and eggs with marriage licenses, or turn on a switch or something?)
Last edited by jackalope; 10-16-09 at 11:31 AM.
This goes back to the Racism that made the Democrat party famous when the KKK was born out of their way of thinking. Do your research and you'll see this is a historical fact, and that those who fought the civil rights movement were Dims. (no spell error) No they claim the high ground. I say this story is ans aberration and does not deserve the national attention it's getting. The Justice need to be removed end of story.
Here's what I said:
[Given the conversations I've seen...]
I was under the impression that "the welfare of the child" was a particulary compelling state interest, and as such, was a legitimate restraint on the exercise of any number of rights.
Under what argument is marriage -- a right -- excluded from control by this compelling state interest?
You may address the question at your leisure.
"muĚlatĚto (m-lt, -lńt, my-)
n. pl. muĚlatĚtos or muĚlatĚtoes
1. A person having one white and one Black parent. See Usage Note at octoroon.
2. A person of mixed white and Black ancestry.
n pl -tos, -toes
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Genetics) (Social Science / Peoples) a person having one Black and one White parent." - mulatto - definition of mulatto by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Hmmm nothing derogatory in the dictionary.
Bunch of politically correct liberal crap as usual.
Last edited by Black Dog; 10-16-09 at 11:36 AM.
No Lives Matter
Who knows maybe a mixed race child could grow up to be President of the USA.
I'm sorry, but you have been provided multiple times with the proof that the actions here are illegal, and also statements completely rejecting your claim that preventing the birth of biracial children is a compelling (or even feasible) state interest.
On what do you base your arguments? That you don't like biracial kids? On what do you base your argument that such bigotry is exempt from the ruling in Loving v Virginia?
Beyond all this, the freedom of parenthood is at stake. While certain practices can be prohibited in order to preserve liberty in the long run, parenting is not generally one of them. The act of child-rearing has too many close associations with too many other important rights, like freedom of religion, privacy, equality, etc, for it to be easily and justfiably regulated by the government. While child welfare is emphasized to the utmost degree possible, there are serious limits on what the government is able to dictate and what it must accept and make the most of when it comes to individual parenting methods.
There is really nothing subjective about it. The state is only interested in material harm. The practices which injure children or lead children into states of mind where they are likelier to hurt others are knowable and predictable.I guess there's a fair amount of subjectivity behind said argument.
Last edited by Morality Games; 10-16-09 at 11:50 AM.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
"... the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were 'to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride,' obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy."
"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."
The lower court found a compelling state interest to prevent racially mixed child from being born, the Supreme Court overturned it.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." -Ronald Reagan