ADVERTISEMENT

well, same sex marriage is officially the law of the land, 5-4

This is insane. Polygamists? Statutory rape?

There are valid policy reasons against both of them. And SCOTUS has ruled on both. Maybe one day we'll change our minds about them. Who knows? But it won't be because of Kennedy's opinion today. His opinion is inapplicable to all these awful degenerates you guys are worried about with the slippery slope. It's an idiotic argument, pure and simple.
 
Is that system fair though? Just because the LGBT community is more vocal and populous, should they be the only ones that are allowed equal rights? Shouldn't every citizen, sans Criminals, have equal rights?

I agree with your point, rights should exist without depending on popularity. So let's look at minority voting, women voting, interracial marriage, and I am sure more. Approval by the majority has always mattered.
 
The fellas here wanna know why NJ and NY can still arrest them if they take their gun and Kentucky-Issued concealed-carry permit across the state line.
 
I'm not FOR polygamy, but if all adults agree with it and are conscious of the decision they're making, I wouldn't care. Beastiality is a whole different "animal" :p in that one party isn't aware of what's going on and can't "agree" to a legally binding agreement.

Try getting a hoof print on a legal document!

Is that really why beastiality isn't legal, because the animals aren't aware of what's going on? Do all those cows and pigs we enjoy eating every day sign a legally binding agreement when they are hauled off to the slaughterhouse?
Beastiality isn't legal because it's weird as hell and disturbing, that's why. But the definitions for what is weird and disturbing get a little more vague every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WisslerIII
Better to just accuse you of hypocrisy. It's far easier and highly accurate.

Still waiting for that first post of substance. There have been hundreds of them from posters across the political spectrum. since you last posted and suggested you'd offer some. Those posters you were all exorcised about have made many, many, many posts that offered substance to the conversations here. You should demand more of yourself.
 
Still waiting for that first post of substance. There have been hundreds of them from posters across the political spectrum. since you last posted and suggested you'd offer some. Those posters you were all exorcised about have made many, many, many posts that offered substance to the conversations here. You should demand more of yourself.
Perhaps you should demand more of yourself, given your unwillingness to practice what you preach. Happy Goat failed to recognize the clear parallels between protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry (something I support wholeheartedly) and those consenting adults who would demand those same rights to marry into a polygamous arrangement. S/he even said they weren't being denied that right, when they clearly are, and then heaped the "degenerate" label on them, not knowing that gays were and still are referred to in a similar manner. It was a textbook example of hypocrisy, apparently to everyone but HG and you.

In the future, you would be far better served focusing on the quality of your posts rather than that of others. It's clear you need to up your game significantly.
 
Perhaps you should demand more of yourself, given your unwillingness to practice what you preach. Happy Goat failed to recognize the clear parallels between protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry (something I support wholeheartedly) and those consenting adults who would demand those same rights to marry into a polygamous arrangement. S/he even said they weren't being denied that right, when they clearly are, and then heaped the "degenerate" label on them, not knowing that gays were and still are referred to in a similar manner. It was a textbook example of hypocrisy, apparently to everyone but HG and you.

In the future, you would be far better served focusing on the quality of your posts rather than that of others. It's clear you need to up your game significantly.

Here, here, and here are some efforts I've tried to make in the last month to add some substance to the forum. They are far from brilliant, but I'm very comfortable that I practice what I preach as they at least attempt to discuss the issues that the forum is grappling with and engage others in thoughtful discourse. I'm still waiting for the first post of yours that isn't pathetically lame, ankle-biting. (and I think you completely misread the "degenerate" comment.) You should check out some posts by DougS, Noodle, MarvintheMartian, Buzz, miv, and hoot1 if you don't like Rockfish's, Goat's, or my style. They all offer different things, but they all offer something. All you offer is your bitterness towards Goat.
 
Perhaps you should demand more of yourself, given your unwillingness to practice what you preach. Happy Goat failed to recognize the clear parallels between protecting the rights of gays and lesbians to marry (something I support wholeheartedly) and those consenting adults who would demand those same rights to marry into a polygamous arrangement. S/he even said they weren't being denied that right, when they clearly are, and then heaped the "degenerate" label on them, not knowing that gays were and still are referred to in a similar manner. It was a textbook example of hypocrisy, apparently to everyone but HG and you.

In the future, you would be far better served focusing on the quality of your posts rather than that of others. It's clear you need to up your game significantly.
Dear Lord, are you stupid. You can't recognize sarcasm? Of course I don't think they are degenerates. That's why I've said multiple times in this very thread that I'd be fine with the state legally recognizing poly relationships.

But they can't do it using the reasoning Kennedy used in his argument to support same-sex marriage (again, most of his argument; as I already said, there is some overlap). The slippery slope argument is ridiculously stupid, and I explained why. It's not my fault you lack the will to bother reading my posts and the brainpower to understand them.

I'm not using a lot of big words in this thread. This shouldn't be so difficult for you.

By the way, you want to know what real hypocrisy is? It's you criticizing hoosboot for being concerned about the quality of others' posts, when that's the only thing you yourself have ever posted here.
 
Is that really why beastiality isn't legal, because the animals aren't aware of what's going on? Do all those cows and pigs we enjoy eating every day sign a legally binding agreement when they are hauled off to the slaughterhouse?
Beastiality isn't legal because it's weird as hell and disturbing, that's why. But the definitions for what is weird and disturbing get a little more vague every day.

Of course it's weird and sick, but a lot of people think two men getting married and sharing a bed is weird and sick. An animal isn't able to be a willing partner. Your slaughterhouse example is completely irrelevant.
 
Here, here, and here are some efforts I've tried to make in the last month to add some substance to the forum. They are far from brilliant, but I'm very comfortable that I practice what I preach as they at least attempt to discuss the issues that the forum is grappling with and engage others in thoughtful discourse. I'm still waiting for the first post of yours that isn't pathetically lame, ankle-biting. (and I think you completely misread the "degenerate" comment.) You should check out some posts by DougS, Noodle, MarvintheMartian, Buzz, miv, and hoot1 if you don't like Rockfish's, Goat's, or my style. They all offer different things, but they all offer something. All you offer is your bitterness towards Goat.
You seem to be your biggest fan, but you've offered nothing of value. Maybe you should try your weak hall monitor claim on someone else.
 
Dear Lord, are you stupid. You can't recognize sarcasm? Of course I don't think they are degenerates. That's why I've said multiple times in this very thread that I'd be fine with the state legally recognizing poly relationships.

But they can't do it using the reasoning Kennedy used in his argument to support same-sex marriage (again, most of his argument; as I already said, there is some overlap). The slippery slope argument is ridiculously stupid, and I explained why. It's not my fault you lack the will to bother reading my posts and the brainpower to understand them.

I'm not using a lot of big words in this thread. This shouldn't be so difficult for you.

By the way, you want to know what real hypocrisy is? It's you criticizing hoosboot for being concerned about the quality of others' posts, when that's the only thing you yourself have ever posted here.
You continue to flail with weak arguments, poor writing, and even poorer reasoning. You're great with immature insults, though, which seems to be your strength. I've also noticed that you've never backed up your claim about me sending you emails, even though you hastily tried to erase your post. Any reason you lack the guts to acknowledge you were lying? A lack of will, perhaps?
 
You continue to flail with weak arguments and more writing. I've also noticed that you've never backed up your claim about me sending you emails, even though you hastily tried to erase your post. Any reason you lack the guts to acknowledge you were lying? A lack of will, perhaps?
I don't think I was lying. I just decided we don't need to air dirty laundry in public. That was dumb.

You're a troll, and your handle is fake. You see that "Moderator" label I have? That means I know who you really are.

Another famous troll, who just happens to live in the same location as you, is the one who occasionally gets a stick up his ass about me (among others). He sent me all sorts of fun emails, which I saved.

Since he's a troll, and an asshole, and you're a troll, and an asshole, and you both write the same, and you both post from the same location, I concluded that you were the same person.

If I was wrong, I apologize for confusing you with said other troll.

But you are a troll, and you'll be banned (again) soon enough. As for our conversation, it is now at an end. Feel free to get the last word, if you like. I won't be responding to you again.
 
I have not read the opinion yet, but by commentators' summaries the opinion is apparently measured in its approach, with the decision likely not having too much relevancy beyond same sex marriage. But I'm sure people will come up with some reasoning as to why it may not be so limited (as happens with most other opinions of this magnitude).
My ministry and church will not do any gay weddings. We've heard some trial balloons stating they might take away the tax exempt status if we take this stand. So be it. What is lost in all this is what is best for our society. I have and always will believe that heterosexual,long term marriage is best for society. It takes a man and woman loving each other till death do them part to raise children well. Now we all make mistakes in life. I've seen the ravages of divorce upon families. I've seen single mothers who got pregnant out of wedlock have a very hard time raising their children alone. Again, the best bet for a healthy society is a man and woman who marry for life to provide the stability children need to have a fighting chance in this world.
 
I don't think I was lying. I just decided we don't need to air dirty laundry in public. That was dumb.

You're a troll, and your handle is fake. You see that "Moderator" label I have? That means I know who you really are.

Another famous troll, who just happens to live in the same location as you, is the one who occasionally gets a stick up his ass about me (among others). He sent me all sorts of fun emails, which I saved.

Since he's a troll, and an asshole, and you're a troll, and an asshole, and you both write the same, and you both post from the same location, I concluded that you were the same person.

If I was wrong, I apologize for confusing you with said other troll.

But you are a troll, and you'll be banned (again) soon enough. As for our conversation, it is now at an end. Feel free to get the last word, if you like. I won't be responding to you again.
So you don't want to air it in public, but then you double down with the same false allegations. Put up or shut up. Show me the emails and let's take them to the people who run this site. I've already challenged you to do this once and you wisely backed away, knowing you were lying. But, since you came back again, back up what you've alleged or admit you're nothing but a gutless coward. But you're a great name caller. It's easily your greatest strength.
 
My ministry and church will not do any gay weddings. We've heard some trial balloons stating they might take away the tax exempt status if we take this stand. So be it. What is lost in all this is what is best for our society. I have and always will believe that heterosexual,long term marriage is best for society. It takes a man and woman loving each other till death do them part to raise children well. Now we all make mistakes in life. I've seen the ravages of divorce upon families. I've seen single mothers who got pregnant out of wedlock have a very hard time raising their children alone. Again, the best bet for a healthy society is a man and woman who marry for life to provide the stability children need to have a fighting chance in this world.
Take a pill, Van, no one is going to force you to officiate a same-sex wedding.

In any church in Indiana gets sued for refusing to do so, I'll happily defend them.
 
Of course it's weird and sick, but a lot of people think two men getting married and sharing a bed is weird and sick. An animal isn't able to be a willing partner. Your slaughterhouse example is completely irrelevant.

If you think beastiality is illegal because the animal isn't a willing partner, well, ok. But that just sidesteps the real reason......because it's extremely weird and disturbing. The same reason incest is illegal in most countries even though in many cases it can involve two consenting adults.

My example isn't irrelevant. We do things to animals all the time against their will. Virtually every meal we eat involves having killed an animal and given how animals react when they are getting slaughtered, I can only assume they aren't willing partners in that arrangement.
 
Yet another opinion where too much is made of a minor legal point

When you get right down to it, all the court said is that a same sex couple applying for a marriage license is similarly situated as a man and a women applying for a license. The vast majority of Americans already lived under such a rule. SCOTUS didn't add much--except in an academic sense.

But the real issue here is not same sex marriage, but that this is the first time in history SCOTUS applied a federal standard to a family law issue. This has exclusively been a state law issue until today. The only alternative to the court's decision today was to allow the states to continue to evolve with same sex marriage. By in large, that train has already left the station. Allowing the states to legislatively decide would take more time, but would have been less divisive.

Colorado is still a common law marriage state. I can see some interesting cases developing.

You say this is the first time SCOTUS has applied a federal standard to a family issue. Where am I wrong in thinking that would have been at least as far back as Loving?
 
You seem to be your biggest fan, but you've offered nothing of value. Maybe you should try your weak hall monitor claim on someone else.

Maybe so, but at least I made attempts to sincerely engage other posters on the topics at hand. I'm still waiting for all that substance you were going to bring.
 
Maybe so, but at least I made attempts to sincerely engage other posters on the topics at hand. I'm still waiting for all that substance you were going to bring.
My attempts to engage have always been sincere, and my critiques have been mild based on several recent examples here. Several posters seem quite capable of criticizing others while simultaneously demonstrating the thinnest of skins. In such instances, they invite further criticism. As for substance, heal thyself.
 
You say this is the first time SCOTUS has applied a federal standard to a family issue. Where am I wrong in thinking that would have been at least as far back as Loving?

That's a good point, Marv

There is a fundamental difference between Loving and same sex marriage. In Loving the couple was indeed married and then convicted of a crime because they resided in Virginia. SCOTUS essentially said that whether or not criminal conduct occurred could not ever depend on the race of the defendant, vacated the conviction, and declared the statute unconstitutional. Loving was about racism, not marriage. I fully understand many judges cited some of the Loving language in support of the same sex marriage holdings. All of that language was surplusage in the Loving opinion and not necessary for the holding. Obergefell is not about criminal conduct. Loving is more like Lawrence v. Texas.
 
I wasn't in support or opposition. I just didn't care to give it thought and energy given the serious problems facing this country.

I agree, conservatives create a unnecessary headaches. But that's nothing new.
 
Maybe so, but at least I made attempts to sincerely engage other posters on the topics at hand. I'm still waiting for all that substance you were going to bring.

Hoos, seriously, ignore this asshole. All he's done is post how others don't have an argument or that they are hypocrites or some other dig, while simultaneously offering absolutely no argument whatsoever. Just stop. All he does is follow goat around the forum. I think he has a boy crush on goat and can't deal with the feelings.
 
Is that system fair though? Just because the LGBT community is more vocal and populous, should they be the only ones that are allowed equal rights? Shouldn't every citizen, sans Criminals, have equal rights?

It is fairly common in the US that a vocal minority will win out versus a passive majority. People that are passionate about an issue are more likely to participate in the system through writing letters, participating in town halls, single issue voting, etc. There are a number of issues where a minority position prevails. Stricter gun control and access to abortion facilities are supported by a plurality or majority of voters. Both have strong minority support and drive much of the policy for these two subjects.

The 2010 elections are a good example. Non presidential elections have lower turn out. The 2010 registered voter turn out was around 38%, about average for non presidential years and about two-thirds of a presidential year. This was the start of the "Tea Party" movement. (And some of the dumbest political ads in history.) The Tea Partiers were fired up and turned out at a higher rate. There are obvious impacts to this higher turn out, but the biggest was the impact on redrawing the congressional district lines. The voters were more conservative in their local elections as they were in the national elections. The lines drawn favored the Republicans. In 2012, Democrats running for House seats received more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 54% of the seats. (This has happened in the Senate races driven by the two senators per state rule.)

All citizens are afforded equal rights including criminals. There are some cases where people advocate rights of their own that might infringe on the ability of others to enjoy theirs. That is a fundamental tension. For example, Utah and North Carolina have passed laws that allow state and local employees to opt out of filling out paperwork for or those that perform marriages may opt out of "participating" in the process if they hold "sincerely held religious objection". Gov. McCrory vetoed the bill based on the fact that state employees take a oath to serve the citizens of the state. His veto was overridden by the legislature.

I do not know if the employees will have to state their "sincerely held religious objection" to opt out. I would be interested in hearing those if required. It would seem to me that objections based on the religious beliefs or race would be disallowed. Still, the state is saying that tax payers in the state can be treated differently because of an employee's religious beliefs. I suspect there will be suits over this very soon and I tend to agree with the the governor. You took an oath. Abide by it or find another position.
 
My ministry and church will not do any gay weddings. We've heard some trial balloons stating they might take away the tax exempt status if we take this stand. So be it. What is lost in all this is what is best for our society. I have and always will believe that heterosexual,long term marriage is best for society. It takes a man and woman loving each other till death do them part to raise children well. Now we all make mistakes in life. I've seen the ravages of divorce upon families. I've seen single mothers who got pregnant out of wedlock have a very hard time raising their children alone. Again, the best bet for a healthy society is a man and woman who marry for life to provide the stability children need to have a fighting chance in this world.
You have every right to believe that. But now the law , and the majority of Americans , believe that two people of the same sex can no longer be discriminated against. They too can get married, receive benefits, and raise children, just like every other married couple in the US. It's a good day for our country.
 
My ministry and church will not do any gay weddings. We've heard some trial balloons stating they might take away the tax exempt status if we take this stand. So be it. What is lost in all this is what is best for our society. I have and always will believe that heterosexual,long term marriage is best for society. It takes a man and woman loving each other till death do them part to raise children well. Now we all make mistakes in life. I've seen the ravages of divorce upon families. I've seen single mothers who got pregnant out of wedlock have a very hard time raising their children alone. Again, the best bet for a healthy society is a man and woman who marry for life to provide the stability children need to have a fighting chance in this world.

That's nice. Do you have any studies to back your beliefs, or do you just believe that? Do you have any credible scientific studies that show children raised by same sex couples are any less well off or maladjusted compared to children raised by heterosexual couples? Are you afraid they'll turn the kids gay? Me, I think you're just another asshole who uses God and the Bible as justification for your hatred, bigotry, and discrimination. I suppose it's easy for ignorant people to hide behind superstition and magical beliefs.
 
Loving was about racism, not marriage.
That's among the silliest things you've ever posted. From Wikipedia (with my emphasis):

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies, as well as several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.
Loving was not about marriage? Really?
 
You can cite Wikipedia in your next brief if you want to

I'll stick to more thoughtful legal analysis.

They weren't even married in Virginia. The crime was living there as husband and wife while being black and white.

You get a C-.
 
My ministry and church will not do any gay weddings. We've heard some trial balloons stating they might take away the tax exempt status if we take this stand. So be it. What is lost in all this is what is best for our society. I have and always will believe that heterosexual,long term marriage is best for society. It takes a man and woman loving each other till death do them part to raise children well. Now we all make mistakes in life. I've seen the ravages of divorce upon families. I've seen single mothers who got pregnant out of wedlock have a very hard time raising their children alone. Again, the best bet for a healthy society is a man and woman who marry for life to provide the stability children need to have a fighting chance in this world.

Here is a site with abstracts and links to a number of studies on same sex marriage and children. I doubt the consensus will change your mind since you have already stated what you "always will believe". I'm missing the connection between single mothers and same sex marriage

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup
 
I've now had time to read the opinions. Some thoughts:

Kennedy's majority opinion reaches the right result, but is thoroughly unhelpful on just exactly what the law now is. In particular, Kennedy focuses almost entirely on a fundamental rights/substantive due process theory, while barely mentioning the equal protection clause -- which I regard as a much stronger argument. But he never quite actually says which theory he's actually relying on, and he provides no guidance on whether, for example, he's applying heightened scrutiny or a rational basis test. Scott Lemieux makes the point well:

While Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are wrong about same-sex marriage, they weren’t wrong about Kennedy’s majority opinion, which leaves a lot to be desired. All of Kennedy’s same-sex marriage opinions have all contained passages whose legal reach exceeds their rhetorical grasp, and even people sympathetic to Kennedy’s conclusions will wince in recognition when reading Scalia’s snarky lines about Kennedy’s “straining-to-be-memorable passages” and “inspirational pop-philosophy.”

Much worse than its aesthetic problems, however, is where Kennedy leaves equal protection law as it pertains to LGBT rights more generally. As with Kennedy’s DOMA opinion – about which I wrote that he “flirt[ed] awkwardly with federalism, due process and equal protection rationales without ever quite summoning up the courage to invite one to the prom” – he maddeningly continued in this opinion to vaguely invoke both equal protection and due process theories without clarifying the applicable standard when it comes to LGBT rights more generally. “Each concept – liberty and equal protection – leads to a stronger understanding of the other,” asserted Kennedy.

The problem with Kennedy’s judicial vagueness is that public officials and lower courts need to know whether classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, like those based on race or gender, or whether such classifications require only a “rational basis”, like economic regulation. If heightened scrutiny applies, states can only use sexual orientation classifications in law if it they are closely related to a compelling state interest – a test states usually fail. If states need only a “rational basis,” courts are generally very deferential to the state. After Friday’s opinion, it seems obvious that heightened scrutiny is being applied in practice, but Kennedy inexplicably refuses to say so. The refusal to define sexual orientation as subject to heightened scrutiny will lead to unnecessary confusion, and possibly permit federal and state judges to deny LBGT rights claims that even Kennedy might think should be upheld.
In a nutshell, the main problem with Kennedy's opinion is that Kennedy wrote it.

I had exactly the opposite reaction to Roberts' dissent: It was measured, rigorous, and wrong. Roberts (politely) lands some hard blows on Kennedy's grandiose woolliness, but essentially he argues that every society on earth has more or less always discriminated against gay people in this way, and if that's to be changed then it should be done by legislatures and not the Court. Obviously I disagree: The 14th amendment says that states can't deny anyone "the equal protection of the laws", the states have obviously been doing just that to gay people, and it's emphatically the Court's job to stop it. If individual liberties are only protected when majorities permit it, then we just don't have individual liberties.

Scalia, who joined Roberts' dissent, made no substantive point Roberts hadn't made and apparently wrote separately only because he regarded Roberts' dissent as insufficiently intemperate. Scalia begins by implausibly insisting that he's got nothing against the icky gays -- who he's described with unconcealed loathing in prior opinions -- then insists that the Court's decision to treat gay people equally with straights is a " threat to American democracy." Where Roberts was respectful, Scalia is derisive, dismissing "the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages" of Kennedy's majority opinion. "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers," he says, "does not deserve to be called a democracy." (Of course, we have a republic, and not a democracy, precisely because we have a Supreme Court that can check majoritarian excesses and protect the rights of disfavored minorities. The Founders detested true democracies.) He's astounded by "the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch." (Because a decision granting equal rights to gay people calls immediately to mind the Nazis' rise to power.) Much of his opinion reads like a snarky blog post. This is a guy who's quit pretending that anyone ought to take him seriously.

I didn't spend much time on Thomas' dissent, except to confirm that he's still insisting that there's no such thing as substantive due process, which might have been a fair point prior to United States v. Carolene Products (1938), but which places him well outside the mainstream of modern legal thought. Thomas is a reasonably well-spoken loon.

I spent enough time with Alito's dissent to be reminded that he is the same neanderthal who, as an appellate judge, upheld the spousal notification requirements that were a bridge too far for Sandra Day O'Connor in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While Kennedy's majority opinion engages in "silly extravagances" (Scalia), Alito's dissent drags its knuckles:

Noting that marriage is a fundamental right, the majority argues that a State has no valid reason for denying that right to same-sex couples. This reasoning is dependent upon a particular understanding of the purpose of civil marriage. Although the Court expresses the point in loftier terms, its argument is that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to promote the well-being of those who choose to marry. Marriage provides emotional fulfillment and the promise of support in times of need. And by benefiting persons who choose to wed, marriage indirectly benefits society because persons who live in stable, fulfilling, and supportive relationships make better citizens. It is for these reasons, the argument goes, that States encourage and formalize marriage, confer special benefits on married persons, and also impose some special obligations.

This understanding of the States’ reasons for recognizing marriage enables the majority to argue that same sex marriage serves the States’ objectives in the same way as opposite-sex marriage. This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate.

. . . While, for many, the attributes of marriage in 21st century America have changed, those States that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage have not yet given up on the traditional understanding. They worry that by officially abandoning the older understanding, they may contribute to marriage’s further decay.
Well, I suppose they do worry about that, or at least claim to, but they can't establish any rational basis for such worries. (Go here to read 7th Circuit Judge Posner eviscerate the arguments made by Indiana and Wisconsin in support of their gay marriage bans.) One can only admire the long-suffering Mrs. Alito for her stoic performance of her wifely duties in an excruciatingly traditional marriage.
 
Last edited:
You can cite Wikipedia in your next brief if you want to

I'll stick to more thoughtful legal analysis.

They weren't even married in Virginia. The crime was living there as husband and wife while being black and white.

You get a C-.
That's just stubborn nitwittery. Loving struck down state bans on interracial marriage. It's ludicrous to claim that Loving wasn't about marriage. From the opinion (with my emphasis):

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. 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."
. . . The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating 20-58 of the Virginia Code:

"Leaving State to evade law. If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."
Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides:

"Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years."
Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and 20-54 and 1-14 which respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions.

The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage.​

And on and on and on about interracial marriage.
 
Last edited:
Hoos, seriously, ignore this asshole. All he's done is post how others don't have an argument or that they are hypocrites or some other dig, while simultaneously offering absolutely no argument whatsoever. Just stop. All he does is follow goat around the forum. I think he has a boy crush on goat and can't deal with the feelings.
Just like Happy Goat and Hoos, no substance. But a three year old name caller who can't do anything else. Back to the shake machine, dude.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT