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.
The same courts also once upheld Plessy v. Ferguesson which legalized institutional discrimination against blacks. Just because it was upheld by the courts doesn't make it right. Loving v. Virginia was a case of the federal government overstepping its bounds. The EP clause states
If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, and whites are allowed to marry whites, then it doesn't violate equal protection. Going by your argument, I could argue that under equal protection I'm allowed to marry an animal or an inanimate object, but that's clearly not the case. It's not a matter of whether you think interracial marriage is right or wrong, it's a matter of the federal government overstepping its bounds and forcing its will on the states and the people.
Its about the federal government and courts protecting the rights of citizens from racists who want to deny them very basic rights.
Regardless, answer the question do you think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?
If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, and whites are allowed to marry whites, then it doesn't violate equal protection. Going by your argument, I could argue that under equal protection I'm allowed to marry an animal or an inanimate object, but that's clearly not the case. It's not a matter of whether you think interracial marriage is right or wrong, it's a matter of the federal government overstepping its bounds and forcing its will on the states and the people.
Under the Loving precedent, you're able to marry a person of the opposite gender that you want. There's a good chance that in the next several years the logic of that case will be extended to same sex marriage.
Also, banning somebody from marrying someone else on the basis of ethnicity is a violation of the Due Process Clause. Marriage is a fundamental right recognized in the Constitution. To deprive somebody of that right without Due Process, and without even a rational basis is patently unconstitutional.
I really wish I could say I was surprised to see somebody advocating a legal prohibition on interracial marriage in here. I wish I could
The same courts also once upheld Plessy v. Ferguesson which legalized institutional discrimination against blacks. Just because it was upheld by the courts doesn't make it right. Loving v. Virginia was a case of the federal government overstepping its bounds. The EP clause states
If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, and whites are allowed to marry whites, then it doesn't violate equal protection. Going by your argument, I could argue that under equal protection I'm allowed to marry an animal or an inanimate object, but that's clearly not the case. It's not a matter of whether you think interracial marriage is right or wrong, it's a matter of the federal government overstepping its bounds and forcing its will on the states and the people.
I'm not sure how an animal or an inanimate object could sign its name to a legal document. otherwise I would of married a comatose billionaire
The same courts also once upheld Plessy v. Ferguesson which legalized institutional discrimination against blacks. Just because it was upheld by the courts doesn't make it right. Loving v. Virginia was a case of the federal government overstepping its bounds. The EP clause states
If blacks are allowed to marry blacks, and whites are allowed to marry whites, then it doesn't violate equal protection. Going by your argument, I could argue that under equal protection I'm allowed to marry an animal or an inanimate object, but that's clearly not the case. It's not a matter of whether you think interracial marriage is right or wrong, it's a matter of the federal government overstepping its bounds and forcing its will on the states and the people.
I see three possibilities here:
1) You've forgotten why separate but equal was unconstitutional
2) You're genuinely not intelligent enough to understand
3) You're a troll
Given that you compare interracial marriage to marrying animals, I'll go for one of the latter two. Animals don't receive the protection of the 14th amendment and further cannot form contracts, thus your argument is totally devoid of anything that could remotely be classified as intellectual substance.
Quote:
The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
I was just going to say that. You beat me to it. It's a southern thing. Not a republican thing. I bet the blacks would say the same thing.
LOL at "the blacks." But anyway, most of us would in no way say that interracial marriage should be illegal. Just in case you didn't know, there's a long and sordid history behind anti-miscegenation laws and Black folks were not the ones railing for their institution as their purpose was to protect the so-called "purity" of the White bloodline from Blacks.
I can tell it really pains some White folks to believe that some issues are still actually racist from largely one side as it refutes one of Faux News' rallying cries that "Blacks are racist too!" But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
That's the exit polls from CNN. One things holds true. If you were white, you voted Republican. If you were white and Christian, you REALLY voted Republican. Everyone made up their minds early in the campaign.
If you were not white, you voted Democrat. Not white and educated, you REALLY voted democrat.
The part of the data that doesn't fit with the OP's poll is the voting of young people. The majority who voted, voted Obama by a good amount. Most young people don't vote, so it's probably an artifact associated with Obama inspiring young people to get out and vote. Those who aren't inspired by anyone of color might have stayed home.
Either way, it's a pretty horrible breakdown. No excuse for that much ignorance.
Wow, can't believe some still people think this way...
The PPP poll shows that Mississippians aged 18-29 are more likely to think interracial marriages should be illegal than those aged 30-45 and those 45-65. The younger generation were pretty similar to those 65 and older in their views on the legality of interracial marriages.
Aged 18-29: 30% say interracial marriages should be legal, while 54% say illegal
Aged 30-45: 48% say legal, while 38% say illegal
Aged 55-65: 49% legal, 39% illegal
Aged 65+: 30% legal, 56% illegal
And please, don't try to say that Florida disproves my own statement. I'm a Floridian and most of us in this state want nothing to do with the South and sure as hell aren't Southerners!
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.
