U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
20,332 posts, read 10,450,237 times
Reputation: 7964

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
This case had nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It was based on whether 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".

See, it wasn't about changing the existing definition of marriage, it was about the law that was racist and unconstitutional.

There are no laws prohibiting a gay man from getting married, it is the fact that a gay man wants to marry another man and thus is demanding that marriage be redefined. Special privilege.
So a law saying that whites can only marry whites has nothing to do with marriage?
Seriously?

What are you smoking? A law that talks about marriage is not about marriage.

There were no law prohibiting a black man from getting married, the fact that a black man wanted to marry a white woman was demanding that the marriage laws be redefined. Special privilege.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:11 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,190 posts, read 2,501,770 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Blacks were NOT 3/5ths of a person. SLAVES were counted as 3/5 a person in the CENSUS for purposes of apportioning electoral votes.
When slavery ended, so did this method of census calculations. The definition of marriage was not changed, the unconstitutional law that banned interracial couples from marrying was struck down.
Before blacks were given equal rights they were not considered people. That was the only way to legally justify state-sanctioned discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Jesus didn't define marriage. LOL Neither did the government.
The government did and does define legal marriage in America. It can changed like anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:11 PM
 
920 posts, read 503,262 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
The law of mississippi.
It is currently illegal for me to get married to my fiancee. It is also illegal for us to have a civil union, a domestic partnership, or have any other contractual agreement that resembles marriage.

"Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state"

"Any marriage between persons of the same gender is prohibited and null and void from the beginning. Any marriage between persons of the same gender that is valid in another jurisdiction does not constitute a legal or valid marriage in Mississippi"

So you are not FORBIDDEN to marry. You cannot marry your fiancé who is of the same sex, correct? I agree with you that if you want to marry your same sex fiancé in Mississippi, it would not be legally recognized.

I don't agree with, not would I support any law that denies gay people the same rights afforded to everyone else. You and your partner should not be precluded from having a civil union, domestic partnership or any other contractual agreement that would confer all those rights and benefits upon you.

If I were you, I would fight the law denying you the ability to enter into a civil union, domestic partnership or other contractual arrangement with your fiancé as that is clearly a constitutional violation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:15 PM
 
920 posts, read 503,262 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
Before blacks were given equal rights they were not considered people. That was the only way to legally justify state-sanctioned discrimination.



The government did and does define legal marriage in America. It can changed like anything else.

Really, before the civil rights act of 1964 black people were not considered people? So the 14th Amendment that passed in 1868 for nothing, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:17 PM
 
920 posts, read 503,262 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
So a law saying that whites can only marry whites has nothing to do with marriage?
Seriously?

What are you smoking? A law that talks about marriage is not about marriage.

There were no law prohibiting a black man from getting married, the fact that a black man wanted to marry a white woman was demanding that the marriage laws be redefined. Special privilege.

Okay Justice jjrose - you keep on trucking!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Sunrise
10,868 posts, read 14,249,558 times
Reputation: 9011
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post

The understanding of marriage has existed since biblical times, but the actual legal definition has probably existed since at least the 14th century and has always remained consistent in the Western world.
Luckily for us, we have a 14th amendment that trumps the 14th century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:18 PM
 
8,859 posts, read 5,136,100 times
Reputation: 10134
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
So you are not FORBIDDEN to marry. You cannot marry your fiancé who is of the same sex, correct? I agree with you that if you want to marry your same sex fiancé in Mississippi, it would not be legally recognized.

I don't agree with, not would I support any law that denies gay people the same rights afforded to everyone else. You and your partner should not be precluded from having a civil union, domestic partnership or any other contractual agreement that would confer all those rights and benefits upon you.

If I were you, I would fight the law denying you the ability to enter into a civil union, domestic partnership or other contractual arrangement with your fiancé as that is clearly a constitutional violation.
The only contract which confers all the rights and benefits of marriage is.....marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:18 PM
 
6,973 posts, read 3,870,340 times
Reputation: 14876
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlcockatoo View Post
what kind of douchebag goes out of his way to revoke LGBT rights that had already been established for years?

it's bad enough being homophobic but taking away the rights of people that they already fought for is a special kind of bigotry.

I don't know where we're at in this thread but for those who support this move, let me ask you this: if LGBT rights are already protected and the lives of heterosexual people have not been altered, what benefit is there in revoking those rights?
A shallow, partisan politician more interested in getting his name in the news and pandering to ignorant partisans than upholding the constitution, as he was sworn to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:19 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,190 posts, read 2,501,770 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Really, before the civil rights act of 1964 black people were not considered people? So the 14th Amendment that passed in 1868 for nothing, huh?
For how long after the 14th Amendment passed were blacks blatantly discriminated against by the government? How was such discrimination justified? By arguing that blacks were lesser than.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:21 PM
 
920 posts, read 503,262 times
Reputation: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV View Post
Luckily for us, we have a 14th amendment that trumps the 14th century.
Yup, you cannot be denied.....life, liberty or property, without due process of law or .... be denied the equal protection of the laws of the jurisdiction in which you reside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top