Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
What are you talking about? How were miscegenation laws discriminatory? They were applied equally to all races-- that was kind of their point. Everyone could still get married, they just couldn't marry someone of another race.
For example:
A white male can marry a white female. A white female can marry a white male. A black male can marry a black female. A black female can marry a black male.
Conversely, a white male cannot marry a black female. A white female cannot marry a black male. A black male cannot marry a white female. A black female cannot marry a white male.
See, no one, regardless of race, had the "right" to marry a person of another race. Thus, no one was being discriminated against.
Which group of people? Did you know that they applied equally to both whites and blacks? That was the point. It wouldn't make sense to allow white people to marry blacks, but not allow blacks to marry whites.
|
Ooo... I see what you did there.
Yes, I do believe in one place I wrote "white" and "black". That was an error on my part. However, what I wrote out still stands. The problem with anti-miscegenation laws were that they denied one group of men and woman a right afforded to another group of men and woman. The issue of gay marriage, however, is not in the same vein. The issue being debated, allowing a man to marry another man or a woman a woman, is currently not a right afforded to ANYONE, regardless of race, gender, orientation etc.. Henceforth, denying gays and lesbians the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as themselves cannot be discriminatory, else it would have long been struck down by SCOTUS.
Quote:
Furthermore, I think that proponents of homosexual marriage recognize the fact that it isn't a codified right in most places.
I think they generally tend to think that it should be, and that the recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry each other is in keeping with the general principles upon which this nation was ostensibly founded. The opponents of gay marriage in California know this; that is why they had to go so far as to amend their state constitution because *whooopseeee* whoever wrote it was so not concerned about the encroaching national threat to morality that is gay marriage that they failed to mention it anywhere.
The only reason gay marriage isn't a right in many of the places where it isn't a right is that confused individuals* have been very proactive about altering state constitutions before that right can be recognized.
|
Marriage, itself, isn't a right (That includes both heterosexual and homosexual marriage). I believe I said in my first post on this thread. As marriage is not a right established anywhere in the Constitution, then how does the allowance or denial of a certain group of people to enter into a marriage either fall in line or conflict with the Constitution?
Quote:
|
*anyone who is really concerned about the sanctity of marriage would have attempted to amend the constitution to outlaw divorce. Fact:most opponents of homosexuality are only pretending to be concerned about the sanctity marriage.
|
Banning divorce wouldn't make make marriage any more sacred. Remember, most people believe that marriage was created by God to between a man and a woman-- Nothing more and nothing less.
Quote:
|
Arguments against gay marriage collectively resemble a crowd of cockroaches congregating in darkness on a kitchen floor. Shed any light on them and they scatter. You can never seem to get rid of them, though.
|
All right. I'll bite. How so?