Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

The problem with libtards is that they hijacked an honorable tradition of classic liberalism and turned it upside down from the inside.

Not this shit again.

Jim, the term 'liberal' has a specific meaning in modern English. And it not the one you want. Too fucking bad. Much like the constitution, the English language isn't subject to your whims and wishes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.

If the specific wordings of the law violate the constitution, they're supposed to overturn those 'wordings'.

Something being written into a law doesn't magically make it constitutional. Or beyond judicial review.

You get that, right?

What you don't get is that when they make the final ruling on a law that says specifically that states without exchanges don't get subsidies and then the courts say that they will just give them the money no matter what the law actually says, unless that law is a specific violation of the Constitution, which it is not, then they are supposed to follow the words of the law.

So you've just completely abandoned your gay marriage babble then?

And redefining words to mean whatever they want them to mean is also judicial legislation and saying you think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution is horse shit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee a right for two men to butt fuck each other and call it marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that a right has to be in the constitution to exist?

You might want to take a look at the 9th amendment. As it explicitly refutes such nonsense. The constitution defines powers. Its not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever intended to be.

You've literally reimagined the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. Apparently, citing yourself. As neither the courts nor the founders ever argued this.

And when activist judges read the Constitution they are supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution, instead they are redefining words and ignoring entire amendments to render rulings that are simply insane.

With an 'activist judge' being anyone who disagrees with you? First, the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. So your entire argument that unless a right is in the constitution, it doesn't exist is a fundamentally false premise. Complete horseshit actually.

Second, the 14th amendment mandates equal protection under the law. And denying same sex couples the right to marry violated the 14th amendment. Says who? Says the USSC, the body with the judicial power and the responsibility to interpret the constitution.

You disagree. Um, so. You're nobody. You're not delegated any authority to define any legal term or interpret anything. You're welcome to your opinion. And I'm welcome to ignore your opinion.

The USSC on the other hand creates binding precedent.

This will be fixed, I guaran-damn-tee it, dude.

It is fixed. And most Americans are fine with it. With gay marriage support at an all time high of 60%...while opposition lingers at anemic 37%.

That's a 23 point spread. With most of the opposition concentrated among the elderly. Folks under 30 support same sex marriage by rates approaching 80%.

So....you don't have the numbers. Not in the electorate. Not on the court. Not among the states for an amendment. And not among our fighting age folks if you wanted to go extra-constitutional over this issue.

Same sex marriage is the law of the land. And there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

lol, no, I have not imagine the Constitution to be an exhaustive list of rights, but I am saying for the courts to rule something as unconstitutional it must be written in the Constitution or else they are engaging in Judicial legislation.

And I know what the old polls state about fagot marriage, and I also know that that is turning around already.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not this shit again.
Jim, the term 'liberal' has a specific meaning in modern English. And it not the one you want. Too fucking bad. Much like the constitution, the English language isn't subject to your whims and wishes.

rolmfao

You are hilarious. You act like this is a settled issue, when it is not.

The libtards like you today would not be recognized as liberals by JFK, Truman, LBJ or FDR as you people are nothing more than radical neoMarxists hiding behind what used to be a respectable term.

Now it is shit and only 20% want to have anything to do with you losers.

 

[Skylar]

lol, no, I have not imagine the Constitution to be an exhaustive list of rights, but I am saying for the courts to rule something as unconstitutional it must be written in the Constitution or else they are engaging in Judicial legislation.

Claiming that a right has to be in the constitution or it doesn't exist is claiming that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of rights. Which the 9th amendment clearly demonstrates it isn't.

The Constitution does not contain all rights. Nor was ever meant to. The constitution is a list of powers. You don't even understand what the constitution is.

The courts have long since recognized the right to marry. Its got about half a century of legal precedent at the very least. You're insisting that the right to marriage has to be in the constitution to exist. You're just wrong. A right doesn't need to be enumerated to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the United States

The entire premise of your argument is pure pseudo-legal horseshit.

And of course, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. And it explicitly forbids the states from unequal protection under the law. You summarily ignoring any portion of the 14th that you don't like doesn't make it disappear. Nor magically eliminate the court's judicial power to intepret the 14th amendment and its meaning.

So you have to ignore the 9th amendment, the 14th amendment, the entire concept of judicial review, and the entire premise of the constitution as a list of powers to believe as you do.

No thank you.

And I know what the old polls state about fagot marriage, and I also know that that is turning around already.

That's a poll from *this* year. You don't have the numbers. And you know you don't have the numbers.

Which is why your argument is based entirely on hypothetical polls that don't actually exist showing majority support for your position. I'll stick with the polls that actually do exist, thank you.

There's not a thing you can do about same sex marriage. There is no fact based scenario where you can win. So you must flee to your imagination, where everyone thinks like you do. Alas, your imagination doesn't pass amendments or reverses rulings.

 

[Skylar]

Not this shit again.
Jim, the term 'liberal' has a specific meaning in modern English. And it not the one you want. Too fucking bad. Much like the constitution, the English language isn't subject to your whims and wishes.

rolmfao

You are hilarious. You act like this is a settled issue, when it is not.

When you say the word 'liberal', 99 people out of 100 think progressive/left leaning. Not 'Thomas Jefferson'.

That you feel otherwise doesn't matter. As the English language isn't subject to your personal opinion. The term liberal isn't used the way you're using it.

What fool uses a term they KNOW doesn't communicate their intended meaning? It would be like referring to 'faggots' and then being dumbfounded that people hear a slur for gays rather than reference to a bundle of sticks.

Why be surprised? You know what these term means in American parlance. And you know how they are used. Pretending otherwise doesn't change it.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Not whatever YOU said it is.

Here is where Skylar will say I'm advocating again.

Prior to same sex marriage the law excluding all family members from mariage met the equal application of the law application.

No two closely related individuals could marry as one would be male the other female. The possibility of defective bloodlines was a compelling state issue great enough to deny the right.

Since now the requirement for each to be of opposite sex is gone, you now have the possibility of siblings marrying without either the ability to procreate nor, in the case of hetros, the want to procreate.

Let me state this again. I am against close family marriage. Having said this again, what is now the compelling state interest in the denial of marriage to hetro same sex siblings who only wish to marry for economic purposes?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Not whatever YOU said it is.

Here is where Skylar will say I'm advocating again.

Prior to same sex marriage the law excluding all family members from mariage met the equal application of the law application.

No two closely related individuals could marry as one would be male the other female. The possibility of defective bloodlines was a compelling state issue great enough to deny the right.

Since now the requirement for each to be of opposite sex is gone, you now have the possibility of siblings marrying without either the ability to procreate nor, in the case of hetros, the want to procreate.

Let me state this again. I am against close family marriage. Having said this again, what is now the compelling state interest in the denial of marriage to hetro same sex siblings who only wish to marry for economic purposes?

If you have an argument for incest marriage, make it. But why do you keep demanding I make it for you?

 

[Pop23]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Not whatever YOU said it is.

Here is where Skylar will say I'm advocating again.

Prior to same sex marriage the law excluding all family members from mariage met the equal application of the law application.

No two closely related individuals could marry as one would be male the other female. The possibility of defective bloodlines was a compelling state issue great enough to deny the right.

Since now the requirement for each to be of opposite sex is gone, you now have the possibility of siblings marrying without either the ability to procreate nor, in the case of hetros, the want to procreate.

Let me state this again. I am against close family marriage. Having said this again, what is now the compelling state interest in the denial of marriage to hetro same sex siblings who only wish to marry for economic purposes?

If you have an argument for incest marriage, make it. But why do you keep demanding I make it for you?

What I ask for is your link to any post in which, as you said I did, advocate for incestuous marriage.

You lied before, you'll lie again.

In 3.....2.....1.....

 

[jillian]

my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?

^^^^ apparently thinks all siblings wanna have sex with each other.

Get your freak off somewhere else Sally.

proves your inability to understand the simplest threads.......

 

[JimBowie1958]

lol, no, I have not imagine the Constitution to be an exhaustive list of rights, but I am saying for the courts to rule something as unconstitutional it must be written in the Constitution or else they are engaging in Judicial legislation.

Claiming that a right has to be in the constitution or it doesn't exist is claiming that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of rights.

That is not what I said, retard. I said the judges should only rule on rights that are in the Constitution. Sure other rights exist, but until they get put into the Constitution they are not part of US legal code, dimwit.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the United States

The entire premise of your argument is pure pseudo-legal horseshit.

Not it isn't ass hat. The limitation to court rulings is what is actually in the Constitution and US legal code. Judges do not have the authority to simply make up new rights and put them into law. That is rule by nine men, not rule by law, and as a nation of laws, not men, that is the gold standard, not whatever makes your libtard brain get warm fuzzies, idiot.

And I know what the old polls state about fagot marriage, and I also know that that is turning around already.

That's a poll from *this* year. .

I don't give a fuck what your bullshit polls say because I have seen better polls that are not done by fagot hacks.


The majority for fagot marriage coming from millennials and they are losing support from them because of the heavy handed way the libtards like you are shoving it on every one. A majority are against letting SCOTUS redefine marriage, and are against forcing people to violate their religious beliefs from bakers in Oregon to Massachusetts.

The slim majority in favor of fagot marriage are also responding to a slanted polling questions, like polls asking if people support marriage equality for fags, instead of asking them something like 'Do you favor homosexuals being abler to force people to violate the First Amendment rights by compelling them to do homosexual weddings?'

And guess what else, jack ass? Conservatives have more babies, the minorities are far more in agreement with social conservatives on this than the fags, and the future belongs to us, not you sodomites.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?

^^^^ apparently thinks all siblings wanna have sex with each other.

Get your freak off somewhere else Sally.

proves your inability to understand the simplest threads.......

Oh, my Gawd, the irony was choking me.

Jillian you re one of the dumbest stumps in the place.

 

[Boss]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

 

[Montrovant]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

 

[Pop23]

Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.

Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.

Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other.

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?

Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?

^^^^ apparently thinks all siblings wanna have sex with each other.

Get your freak off somewhere else Sally.

proves your inability to understand the simplest threads.......

Can you point to the part of the law that sex is a requirement of a marriage?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The problem with libtards is that they hijacked an honorable tradition of classic liberalism and turned it upside down from the inside.

Where a classic liberal would advocate free speech and letting people voice their opinions, libtards want to silence their opposition by any means necessary.

Where classic liberals respected the rule of law, libtards since the late 1960's have started advocating judicial legislation and judicial activism to use the courts to circumvent the will of the people of the nation by twisting the Constitution and the law to mean whatever they want it to mean..

Where liberals used to advocate respect for our nations Founders, the current libtards disrespect them and dismiss them as slave owning white rapists.

A libtard is not a classic liberal, they are a Pod People copy of the real thing that is now extinct.

What is ironic though, is that Obama is setting the precedent for a conservative President, backed by the military, doing whatever the hell he wants with the laws of this nation, and after stacking the SCOTUS making almost any kind of ruling they want.

Libtards don't seem to realize that they are only about 20% of the population and they are undermining their own right to use the law to protect their own interests in the face of a hostile public.

Ya Nailed it!

 

[Faun]

Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.

What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?" What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise! What kind of drugs are you smoking these days? ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here. It's what I do!

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support.

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples. Gay Marriage, here to stay, right? Not so fast....

There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it.

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS. Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War! So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.

So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships? Well, contracts! That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality!

Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home? Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you? A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.

It's not your idea. Are you so mentally deficient that you believe if you hear an idea somewhere, it becomes yours because you post it here?

But about the notion of cutting off your nose to spite your face, what you call eliminating state-issued marriage licenses for all ... unless you get it done in all 50 states, it's pointless because gays will merely get legally married in states which do issue licenses.

 

[Faun]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

The court did not change the Constitution.

 

[EverCurious]

In the end, Bazile refused to vacate the conviction, instead issuing on January 22, 1965, a racially charged ruling defending Virginia's antimiscegenation laws. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," he wrote. "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."

Bazile's decision was both appealable and, from the perspective of the Lovings' lawyers, helpfully inflammatory. By clarifying the judge's motivations and introducing religious and moral elements to the case, the ruling may have helped win attention to the case. Many years later, Hirschkop told an interviewer, "When Judge Bazile rendered his opinion, he couldn't have done us a bigger favor than that horrible language about the races on a separate continent."

The Loving case wended its way through the state and federal appeals process until, on March 7, 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals again upheld Virginia's antimiscegenation laws. At the same time, the court set aside the original conviction, finding a sentence that required the defendants to leave the state "unreasonable." The court also chided the trial judge for sentencing the Lovings to one year in jail, suspended, when the Code of Virginia required that they be sentenced to the penitentiary. The case was returned to the circuit court of Caroline County. The Lovings, however, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and this time the court agreed to hear the case.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Loving v. Virginia on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

For the Lovings, Hirschkop argued that Virginia law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law by denying potential spouses and their children their civil rights simply because of race. "These are slavery laws, pure and simple," he said. In reference to the Act to Preserve Racial Integrity, Hirschkop noted that Virginia was "not concerned with racial integrity of the Negro race, only the white race." In fact, he noted, nonwhite non–African Americans could marry African Americans without penalty.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment in the courtroom came when Cohen, arguing that the law violated the Lovings' rights to due process, told the justices, "No matter how we articulate this, no matter which theory of the due process clause or which emphasis we attach to, no one can articulate it better than Richard Loving when he said to me, 'Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia.'"

On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Richard and Mildred Loving, striking down Virginia's law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival … To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

 

[Syriusly]

OMG!

Pop is saying that incest is an act, therefore incest marriage is marriage based on sex between close relations. If you use a different term, such as close relation marriage, this whole side argument can at least change a bit.

Pop is just desparately trying to find someone to dance with his straw man.

He can't make a rational argument against same gender marriage, so he tries to condemn homosexual marriage by equating it to other 'couplings' he doesn't approve of- or maybe he does?

Either way- he just wants someone to dance with his Straw Man.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Actually there is a presumption that sex will occur within marriage. Marriages can be nullified if a man is impotent- or if either party entered a marriage with the inability- or unwillingness to have sex with their partner.

Not that that has anything to do with Pop's straw man, but just a point of fact.

Pop's whole argument revolves around one thing: he has declared that the only reason to deny siblings marriage is procreation.

He wants someone to argue with him but he ignores actual citations from judges citing other reasons.

He is a troll.