• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Caine said:
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...
Click to expand...
Wasn't the USSR even more anti-gay than the US, even back then? Or do I have my history wrong...

Edit: Partially wrong.
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.
Click to expand...
 
Anthony60 said:
Completely irrelevant
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's relevant because things change??? Boy, don't get too specific. That's basically a non response.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
roguenuke said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
roguenuke said:
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
Click to expand...

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 that’s 44 years after the Loving decision.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
JFish123 said:
Is freedom of Religion and Speech protected?
https://youtu.be/SqfCdVUH4WY
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How are the two arguments dissimilar?
What makes the arguments different?
 
Verthaine said:
How are the two arguments dissimilar?
What makes the arguments different?
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, actually most of the arguments were/are the same...
Arguments used against interracial marriage:

It is bad for the children
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Applies to any mix of marriage, very non specific.

Relationships prone to divorce/not being monogamous
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
roguenuke said:
None of your points above rebut anything I posted.
Click to expand...

Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations

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.
Click to expand...
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.

And Southern Democrats of the past are currently conservative Republicans...
Click to expand...

LOL!!! You have 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.

History Lesson.jpg

.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Who is this "they"? It's not most of the citizens out there, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

You know who you are.

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.
Click to expand...

A comment like that tells me that you don't even know what the issue is. But if you do, let's hear it.

I think it is pretty despicable that Obama switched solely for votes and contribution. It sure says a lot about those that voted for him too.
 
Anthony60 said:
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

.
Click to expand...

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.

ilovemylife: INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE - U.S. Supreme Court Case trumps states' rights in Loving v. Virginia in 1967

And the late Senator Byrd renounced the hateful things he did in the past, during the Civil Rights Era.

"For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[61] rated Byrd's voting record as being 100 percent in line with the NAACP's position on the 33 Senate bills they evaluated. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Political_views

So, no Sen. Byrd ended up just renouncing the "Southern Democrat" ways.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

And the late Senator Byrd renounced the hateful things he did in the past, during the Civil Rights Era.
Click to expand...
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.

So, no Sen. Byrd ended up just renouncing the "Southern Democrat" ways.
Click to expand...
Awww... well that makes it all right then, doesn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom