I disagree, but we can agree to disagree. It's not taking away a person's right, the precedent of man marrying a woman has been established for thousands of years. The institution of marriage has been established in that form for thousands of years. That is primarily what those like myself would like to protect. Obviously, others have different views. To compare it with black marrying whites is out of context. A black man is not different than a white man. However, a woman is different than a man. It's kinda like me fighting for the right to use the ladies room. Nonetheless, my protest is moot. I'm certain it will go in the opposite direction in due time. I still love you Californians though....gggrrrrr
yep, People don't know but Interracial marriage wasn't legal in all of the united states untill 2000. It hasn't been that long.
You're mighty quick! I'm kind of surprised OH didn't have an explicit law as funny as some of the people act here.
A citizen is a citizen no matter their gender or race. That's the thing with equality. Either everyone gets the same rights or no one does. Either every American has the right to marry or no one does, correct? You have to give everyone the same rights as a USA citizens. That is what many have fought for. That is what makes it like Interracial marriages. The fact that you are taking away some else's rights is something that I don't quite understand where people have an issue battling this out. If it gets to the supreme court, the question will be should all americans have the same rights. We all know the answer to that. It is yes. Courts are concerned about rights and not tradition. Equality must be obtained to have a civil country.
Arch, I Wiki'd the Loving case real quick. It states they left Virginia for D.C. to evade VA's anti-miscenegation law - never even heard that term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
For anyone that is interested (about IR marriages): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277/ http://www.majorcox.com/columns/penricks.htm
Actually, the Loving case legalized IR marriages in all states in 1967. Some states didn't amend their constitutions to remove the bans until recently. Even though they didn't amend them until later, they could no longer ban IR marriages after 1967.
...not to get into semantics, but every citizen does have a right to marry....but I know what you're getting act. You just have to be careful how you word it honestly, because a 'gay' person has the same right as I do. So essentially, it is equal. With that said, we have to admit that its changing an institution or precedent if marriage is altered. Either way, I think it should be illegal for women to shave their kitty bald. But I know that's not gonna pass.
I don't think that would stop someone from trying a person if it still a state law. The states will fight the federal government tooth and nail if they want. You watch this health care bill and how states will make laws against it. Missouri has already started, I believe The funny thing about this discussion is Ms. Loving commented about gay people marrying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Later_implications This lady realizes what equality is about.
If you go back to earlier times, there were very few states that didn't have some sort of ban on IR marriages. I believe that there were maybe 17 states that never had any kind of ban on it.
If this was the first time that this institution was being changed then I would say just call one gay marriage and the other straight marriage. That way the straight marriage keeps that tradition. It isn't though.
There were only two states that had the ban in their constitutions. It was Alabama and South Carolina. Do you know of any cases that had to be taken back to the Supreme Court from those two states because it was denied?
