This Week Marks the 51st Anniversary Of Interracial Marriage

[Biff_Poindexter]

Why the Supreme Court’s Decision in Loving v. Virginia Had Little to Do With Love - The Atlantic

Whether you feel it was a mistake or not for people of different races to marry is not really the topic -- but if you want to re-hash that fight, feel free.

But to recap; these were the actual legal and political arguments against interracial marriage:
Race mixing is communism
God disapproves of race mixing
Race mixing leads to incest
Race mixing spreads disease
Race mixing is bad for children

How 50 years ago any of these arguments were considered rational is beyond me but what I found that is interesting is what the Supreme court actually based their ruling on -- which had nothing to do with love -- from the article:

The Loving decision instead responded to the eugenic aspect of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act and how it was designed to prevent the perceived dilution of white racial purity. Rather than celebrating love, the Court’s opinion states that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional because they are “measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”

 

[TheOldSchool]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

 

[martybegan]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

...tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench.

 

[martybegan]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

...tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench.

Wrong.

And the actual matter at hand was Virginia's miscegenation laws and the ignoring of a valid marriage license from another State.

If you have read my posts to me Obergfell should have merely forced States to accept any valid marriage license from another State under full faith and credit.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

3 or 4 decades? More like millenia.

 

[martybegan]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

3 or 4 decades? More like millenia.

Show me any historical precedent before the mid 20th century for same sex marriage as a recognized institution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

3 or 4 decades? More like millenia.

Show me any historical precedent before the mid 20th century for same sex marriage as a recognized institution.

Nothing I link to will satisfy you. Just realize that for all of human history gay people have existed and have married or the equivalent of in many cultures.

 

[Pop23]

Why the Supreme Court’s Decision in Loving v. Virginia Had Little to Do With Love - The Atlantic

Whether you feel it was a mistake or not for people of different races to marry is not really the topic -- but if you want to re-hash that fight, feel free.

But to recap; these were the actual legal and political arguments against interracial marriage:
Race mixing is communism
God disapproves of race mixing
Race mixing leads to incest
Race mixing spreads disease
Race mixing is bad for children

How 50 years ago any of these arguments were considered rational is beyond me but what I found that is interesting is what the Supreme court actually based their ruling on -- which had nothing to do with love -- from the article:

The Loving decision instead responded to the eugenic aspect of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act and how it was designed to prevent the perceived dilution of white racial purity. Rather than celebrating love, the Court’s opinion states that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional because they are “measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”

Incest: The law reads then and now that the partners be "not to closely related". Didn't matter if the couple was mixed race or not. And the reason was that, those closely related could breed and create children with defective genetic makeup. Either the child itself, or the child's offspring could suffer because of this. Loving did nothing to make the "not closely related" irrelevant.

It makes sense. We know that Incest happens (physical, sexual contact between those that are "closely related) outside of marriage, and it is a violation of the law AND SHOULD REMAIN SO WHETHER MARRIED OR NOT), but there is no compelling State interest in denial of the right to Marry someone closely related if you are same sex, regardless of sexuality, homosexual or heterosexual. The compelling State interest would only apply to pairs that can breed.

That is the difference between what "Loving" did 51 years ago, and what "Obergfell" did in 2015.

 

[martybegan]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

3 or 4 decades? More like millenia.

Show me any historical precedent before the mid 20th century for same sex marriage as a recognized institution.

Nothing I link to will satisfy you. Just realize that for all of human history gay people have existed and have married or the equivalent of in many cultures.

Yes, they have existed, but no, there has never been an equivalent of recognized marriage between them.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Incest: The law reads then and now that the partners be "not to closely related". Didn't matter if the couple was mixed race or not. And the reason was that, those closely related could breed and create children with defective genetic makeup. Either the child itself, or the child's offspring could suffer because of this. Loving did nothing to make the "not closely related" irrelevant.

It makes sense. We know that Incest happens (physical, sexual contact between those that are "closely related) outside of marriage, and it is a violation of the law AND SHOULD REMAIN SO WHETHER MARRIED OR NOT), but there is no compelling State interest in denial of the right to Marry someone closely related if you are same sex, regardless of sexuality, homosexual or heterosexual. The compelling State interest would only apply to pairs that can breed.

That is the difference between what "Loving" did 51 years ago, and what "Obergfell" did in 2015.

I understand you are passionate about this subject - but you have not explained to me how incest was a sound argument against interracial marriage

 

[TheOldSchool]

Bunch of activist judges, right cons?

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

3 or 4 decades? More like millenia.

Show me any historical precedent before the mid 20th century for same sex marriage as a recognized institution.

Nothing I link to will satisfy you. Just realize that for all of human history gay people have existed and have married or the equivalent of in many cultures.

Yes, they have existed, but no, there has never been an equivalent of recognized marriage between them.

Here: Same-Sex Marriage in History: What the Supreme Court Missed

You won’t be satisfied, but honestly, that doesn’t matter for shit

 

[Pop23]

Incest: The law reads then and now that the partners be "not to closely related". Didn't matter if the couple was mixed race or not. And the reason was that, those closely related could breed and create children with defective genetic makeup. Either the child itself, or the child's offspring could suffer because of this. Loving did nothing to make the "not closely related" irrelevant.

It makes sense. We know that Incest happens (physical, sexual contact between those that are "closely related) outside of marriage, and it is a violation of the law AND SHOULD REMAIN SO WHETHER MARRIED OR NOT), but there is no compelling State interest in denial of the right to Marry someone closely related if you are same sex, regardless of sexuality, homosexual or heterosexual. The compelling State interest would only apply to pairs that can breed.

That is the difference between what "Loving" did 51 years ago, and what "Obergfell" did in 2015.

I understand you are passionate about this subject - but you have not explained to me how incest was a sound argument against interracial marriage

It actually was not a sound argument, just pointing out the VAST difference between "Loving" and Obergfell"

 

[Mac1958]

Early on, not too much in the way of the fireworks hoped for by the bait thread.

Maybe it will pick up a bit.

 

[Pop23]

Early on, not too much in the way of the fireworks hoped for by the bait thread.

Maybe it will pick up a bit.

I'm trying my best Mac!

 

[martybegan]

Nope. marriage bans between races was something imposed on top of the original concept.

SSM is an entirely new concept, something less than 3 or 4 decades old, and thus is a further stretch to consider as equal under the constitution and the 14th amendment.

Of course this doesn't stop States from changing the marriage laws via legislative action or referendum, as per the State's own constitution.

3 or 4 decades? More like millenia.

Show me any historical precedent before the mid 20th century for same sex marriage as a recognized institution.

Nothing I link to will satisfy you. Just realize that for all of human history gay people have existed and have married or the equivalent of in many cultures.

Yes, they have existed, but no, there has never been an equivalent of recognized marriage between them.

Here: Same-Sex Marriage in History: What the Supreme Court Missed

You won’t be satisfied, but honestly, that doesn’t matter for shit

If that's the best you can come up with, it's easy to not be satisfied because there isn't proof of societal recognition on a large scale.

Using Roman Emperor debauchery as an example is kind of lame.

And most of the other examples were mostly for property reasons, and only in very limited cases.

 

[martybegan]

Early on, not too much in the way of the fireworks hoped for by the bait thread.

Maybe it will pick up a bit.

The Loving-Obergfell connection is tenuous at best, which is probably the original purpose of the thread.

That, or to call out the actual Nazis on this board.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Early on, not too much in the way of the fireworks hoped for by the bait thread.

Maybe it will pick up a bit.

Enough to irk you into responding, huh Trump sheep?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Early on, not too much in the way of the fireworks hoped for by the bait thread.

Maybe it will pick up a bit.

This is the firework statement of the thread:

“measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”

Which will always be ignored by the typical closet racist -- slavery apologist --bigot who always says that "blacks weren't discriminated against and if they were, it was a long time ago -- and liberals did it" or "this country wasn't founded on white supremacy, and if it was, that was hundreds of years ago"

Fact of the matter is -- a court that is only from 50 years ago still felt their was a system of white supremacy still being maintained

 

[Mac1958]

Early on, not too much in the way of the fireworks hoped for by the bait thread.
Maybe it will pick up a bit.

Enough to irk you into responding, huh Trump sheep?

Hillary voter here. My politics are in my sig.

Nice try, Regressive.

Triggered another one.
.