The culture of the South was still a culture of the US. Denying that means that you do not even recognize that the same thing is happening today, acceptance of same sex marriage is pretty much a done-deal in much of the Northeast and on the West coast and even within most major cities throughout the country. Opposition to same sex marriage is only a cultural majority right now in the South, Midwest, Rocky-Mountain areas, and in general rural areas.
As for the interracial marriage thing, here you go.
Gay Marriage Has Twice the Support Today That Interracial Marriage Had When It Was Legalized in the 1960s *Pensito Review
"In 1968, the year after the “activist” Supremes legalized interracial marriage in its decision on Loving vs. Virginia, a Gallup poll found that
the vast majority of Americans still opposed the idea that blacks and whites could marry — 72 percent to 20 percent. Just 10 20 years earlier, in the wake of a California Supreme Court decision that overturned newly minted anti-interracial marriage laws in the state, Gallup found that 94 percent of Americans opposed mixed-race marriages."
You cannot show harm done or even potential harm from same sex marriages. Until you can, you have nothing legally speaking.
The south was not THE culture of the United States, and to try to squirm your point in there based on your premise, thanks but no thanks. States, regions and the country have a right to establish their own cultures. When we agreed to Federal Union, the states agreed to that based on a contract [ see the Constitution and the Federalist Papers ] that stipulated that the Federal government was limited to what was enumerated in the Constitution as well as a minimal application of those implied powers, only to carry out those powers enumerated. The Federal government have far overstepped, is in breach of this agreement, and is continuing to heap insult upon injury.
Well, thanks for supplying a liberal source with which to "substantiate" your views. I didn't ask for that, but thanks anyhow. I said that segregation was not a majority view in any event. Yet I would still maintain that if we the people did not want interracial marriage as a part of our culture, the sovereigns will, whether you or I agree or not, should be the rule. That is up to the states individually to decide, and if you don't like how a state does it, move to a state where things are more to your liking.
You can try to force it and forcing it sometimes works, perhaps in this case. Or you can try to force it and forcing it doesn't work until the people come around, are ready and have been persuaded [ i.e., the Civil War force and the people not coming around and segregation ending until almost 100 years later ]. If the people truly are not ready or truly do not want what you are trying to force it down our throats, its not gonna happen
You have yet to show the harm that a man or woman marrying a tree would inflict... so you don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, legally speaking.
Trees cannot sign contracts, they are not US citizens, they cannot communicate with humans. Laws apply to humans, not animals, plants, or inanimate objects. When a tree itself can legally sue someone, claim property rights, or be protected by the US Constitution, then we can talk.
Who cares about all that, you cannot show harm, can you? What is the legitimate state interest in excluding these forms of marriage? Hoist on your own petard.
Besides which laws apply to all sorts of inanimate things... cars, guns, water, energy, light bulbs, animals, air...and of course to trees. I mean how silly is that notion that laws only apply to humans?
How about I make the same sort of "silly" stipulation, when same sex couples can procreate among just the two, then we can talk.