• 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!

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

Standard forms that would have to be aproved by SOMEONE at some point inorder to make the contract official. That someone could apply the same retarded thought process that this JOP applied and refuse to put the official stamp on the forms. It only takes one idiot with some manner of power to mess with people's lives.

No, standard forms that would have to be filed by someone, not approved. The contract is for management of your estate, finances, blah blah blah. State doesn't have much say (or shouldn't). Much of what comes with marriage is some omnibus contract that allows for certain management of your assents and access to accounts, healthcare, etc. All that can be done separately. Anything involving deductions of tax and what have you should be done away with (I even think the child deductions should be done away with).
 
Loving vs Virginia already addressed your concern.
I dont see where Loving vs Virginia addresses the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage.

Care to provide the text to that end?
 
Last edited:
As I said: Subjectivity.
Thanks for illustrating it so well.

In other words, you have no grounds upon which to continue this portion of the argument, so you dismiss it out of hand and act like you won.

:lol:

Oh well, at least you're entertaining.
 
The government should stay out of the issue of marriage all together. There is no longer any real reason for a marriage license other then to discriminate. Once upon a time a marriage license was needed for things like tax purposes because a husband was the one who worked and cared for at least one other person financially. These days, that is no longer true. Spouses are both in the work force, and if one happens to get pregnant, or other reasons to miss work, there are other means to financial assistance and the government will adjust their taxes in other ways.

Marriage licenses serve no other purpose except to deny people legal recognition of their relationship, therefore, marriage licenses should be abolished. People who believe the law should restrict things like marriage are giving the government far too much power into people's personal lives. Simply not approving of something is not a good reason to impose it on the entire population.
 
I dont see where Loving vs Virginia addresses the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage.

Care to porvide the text to that end?

Loving vs Virginia clearly states that marriage is a fight of man. That means the state can not discriminate based on race. Whatever point you trying to make is moot.
 
I dont see where Loving vs Virginia addresses the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage.

Care to porvide the text to that end?



I have to say, the very notion that someone would consider the biracial heritage of a person to be a handicap that might need the interjection of the state, in order to protect the welfare of a child born with such a heritage, is so abhorrent to me it makes me physically recoil and shiver slightly ...
 
Loving vs Virginia clearly states that marriage is a fight of man. That means the state can not discriminate based on race. Whatever point you trying to make is moot.
nice slip...i agree, fight is part of it!
 
So?

I said:

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 people are going to have to make up your mind -- all this subjectivity is hard to follow.

The welfare of a child is a compelling state interest, but the Supreme Court has found that interest not compelling enough to prevent interracial couples the right to marry.
 
The welfare of a child is a compelling state interest, but the Supreme Court has found that interest not compelling enough to prevent interracial couples the right to marry.
According to...?
 
... the Supreme Court, who are the final word of the state actions.
Sorry that I wasnt clear in my query...

In what case?
 
Loving vs Virginia.
Again:

I dont see where Loving vs Virginia addressed the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage.

Care to porvide the text to that end?
 
Nah not really I'm bored now so you win. In the mean time the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a right.
Yes, you said that. You even povided a source - Loving vs Virginia

What you havent shown is where Loving vs Virginia addressed the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage -- as you claimed.

Care to porvide the text to that end?

'cause if you can't, your citation has no relevance, given that there has been no argument agaist the idea that marriage is a right.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you said that. You even povided a source - Loving vs Virginia

What you havent shown is where Loving vs Virginia addressed the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage -- as you claimed.


Care to porvide the text to that end?

Where did I claim that?
 
Loving vs Virginia.

Just so people don't have to search...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
 
Where did I claim that?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ed-marriage-license-la-10.html#post1058310681

I said:

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?

(Note: this is where I stipulate that marriage is a right)

You people are going to have to make up your mind -- all this subjectivity is hard to follow.

YOU said:

Loving vs Virginia already addressed your concern. So when are you going to turn this into a gun rights thread?

So...

What you havent shown is where Loving vs Virginia addressed the issue of the compelling interest of the state to ensure the welfare of children, or where said compelling state interest has no sway over the right to marriage -- as you claimed.

Care to porvide the text to that end?
 
Last edited:
Okay fine think whatever you want to in your fantasy world. You win pat yourself on the back. In the mean time SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a right and differing races will keep on getting married and procreating.

OH MY GOD! NO! SAY IT ISN'T SO! :lol:


TED,
Couldn't resist.
 
Okay fine think whatever you want to in your fantasy world. You win pat yourself on the back. In the mean time SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a right and differing races will keep on getting married and procreating.
I accept your concession, understand that is is because you know you cannot counter my argument, and chuckle at the irrellevance of your comment, given the argument at hand.
 
I really hope you pause and read that comment out loud, while looking in the mirror.

The sheer LOL might create a quantum singularity.
 
Back
Top Bottom