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.
Sanrene: "The case had really nothing to do with marriage. "
SCOTUS: "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
I bolded the important part for you. When it was cited by the Court in the holding of Loving, it became more than a concurring opinion.
It became the law, whether you like it or not.
You really should stop now.
But not before you answer my question.
Aren't you embarrassed yet? How much are they paying you?
They're not getting their money's worth, IMHO.
How can a statement within a ruling that had nothing to do with the case before the court become law?
The court was not ruling on weather marriage is a right and just because he made comment about what HE thinks, outside of the MAIN opinion, is meaningless and certainly does not say what you say it does.
Oh, best watch the personal attacks. Let's just try and stick to the topic and not make it personal.
Sanrene: "The case had really nothing to do with marriage. "
SCOTUS: "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
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. [n1] 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.
Now, I would have thought you might have known that.
It's hillarious. The anti-gay crowd spits out their cliche phrases and words and blah blah.. but when you ask them a question, they ignore you. They will just side track and say something else.
"Why is same sex marriage wrong?"
"WHAT'S NEXT, BESTIALITY!?!!"
"Huh, what? Can you answer the question? Why is same sex marriage wrong?"
"POLYGAMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
UGH.
Good luck getting an answer. They will never respond with a direct one.
How can a statement within a ruling that had nothing to do with the case before the court become law?
How can a statement within a ruling have nothing to do with the case?
It was included in the holding of Loving. You seem to have great difficulty understanding the meaning of this fact.
Quote:
The court was not ruling on weather marriage is a right and just because he made comment about what HE thinks, outside of the MAIN opinion, is meaningless and certainly does not say what you say it does.
LOL
I think it means exactly what it says. It has been very entertaining watching your gyrations, trying to argue that it doesn't mean precisely what it says.
A concurring opinion is not part of a holding. This is correct. But when it was cited in the holding of Loving, it became law.
And that just really burns your ass for some reason, but it is a fact.
And what does this have to do with the weather?
Quote:
Oh, best watch the personal attacks. Let's just try and stick to the topic and not make it personal.
This case had nothing to do with the question of marriage being a right. It had to do with the STATE of VA and how they were administering the contract of marriage based on RACE.
Quote:
I think it means exactly what it says. It has been very entertaining watching your gyrations, trying to argue that it doesn't mean precisely what it says.
A concurring opinion is not part of a holding. This is correct. But when it was cited in the holding of Loving, it became law.
And that just really burns your ass for some reason, but it is a fact.
Still waiting for the case that determines if marriage is a right, because this one doesn't, sorry. Just because the judge makes a statement about what he believes marriage to be, if the issue does not reside in the main question AND ruling...forget it.
Quote:
Then start being intellectually honest.
But I am - debunking your misreading of the ruling with your pull quote. Your quote was not an issue OR addressed by the court.
Now find me one that was.
People have the "freedom" to marry, based on restrictions and criteria determined by the state. IF it were truly a "right", could we marry our cousins, brother, pet dog?
Now, I would have thought you might have known that.
I do know that.
Even better, I know it's my point, not yours.
Remember when I said you should stop now?
Too late.
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.
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.
