Is Same Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage the Same?

Oh, ok. I gotcha now. I just didn't want it to seem as if the south was the only ones that were ever opposed to it. We are on the same page then.

 

Good find Schnookums

 

Yeah - I wasnt clear, my booboo.
I was thinking more modern days when things should have been more evolved that they acctually were.
As a foreigner, we never were taught about the laws against IR marriage America had so I was stunned when I found out there were laws against it as late as the 1960s.

 

I think that any two people in love who wish to spend the rest of their lives with each other and have that be legally recognized should be allowed to get married. Whether they're black, white, gay, straight, rich, poor, etc etc etc. :smt080
And I don't understand anyone who thinks differently.

 

It's definitely a shame that there were bans to begin with. When California legalized IR marriages in 1948, apparently 90% of Americans were still opposed to it according to one article that I read. That same article stated that adults that were opposed to IR marriages didn't become a minority until 1991. I don't know how accurate that is, but if there is any truth in it, it is just ridiculous.

 

Its just stunning to me:-(
.

 

I'm not saying it would not get stopped by the supreme court. I know the supremacy clause but there are a lot of jackasses that would run you through just because they don't like you or what you are doing. The only safe measure is to remove it which they all did by 2000.

 

It is. It's so sad to see how narrowminded people can be. I just don't understand why people care what other people do as long as it doesn't infringe on their rights. It really baffles me.

True. It definitely needed to be removed. I was just curious if anyone had to fight it after the Loving case.

 

Real women are to have something to show for it.

 

The Iowa Supreme Court said this about that last year:

http://kyoske.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

NO

 

That's a good find Chi. While I respect the opinion of this particular court, the fact is that its still their opinion and not rooted in precedent at all.

A different court may have the opposite opinion which would not be anymore 'factual' than the above statement.

Our opinions or even interpretations of the subject is value-based and not legislative-based on either side, frankly. So at the end of the day, when the dust settles, it will be someone's value-based-opinion that won the day.

 

:smt017

 

I know you are joking around here, but the "slippery slope" argument is exactly what many opponents to gay marriage use to support their cause. There are polygamous groups that are watching the legal proceedings with gay marriage very closely as they can make all of the same/similar legal claims to support their cause as well and will jump at the chance using legalized gay marriage as precedent.

This is why I believe gay marriage will always have an uphill battle with any legal step forward being met with numerous appeals (I bet the recent victory in California will be repealed), there are too many special interest groups with power and money who would be afraid of re-defining and expanding the meaning of marriage, see article below.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/proposition-8-pastors-say_n_435727.html

 

I think all that you have said is valid...and yes, I like to joke around - keeps things civil.

However, for me personally, the slippery slope effect is very troubling. We need only look at how things change from day to day. I respect your point.

 

Given my libertarian views on social issues, I believe gays have the right to be in a loving union as I, a heterosexual man, do. Having said that, I get offended when they make the slippery slope comparison to black civil rights. Just my 2 cents.

 

This I agree on. Let them get shot at with a hose and outwardly discriminated before saying that. I could not understand how wanada sykes made that compariosn. No one who lived through that time would have made a comment like that.

 

Who you marry is a God given right.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o