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.
In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court overruled the clear will of the majority -- it legalized interracial marriage.
Given the current debate over whether the courts should decide the issue of same-sex marriage, I'm curious on what people think of Loving v. Virginia. Was the court overstepping its authority in overriding the overwhelming will of the people of Virginia?
It's a great case that applies really well to the same-sex marriage issue we're having now. Right in the first sentence it says marriage is a right of man and we shouldn't deny rights. Simple.
"They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state."
...
"'Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."
But that was not a court ruling that over rued a constitutional amendment ;like the earlier ruling against the california law it was a state law. Big difference.
Well, if you want to know what I think, here it is.
I am very much for gay marriage and for interracial marriage. In a country where you supposedly have freedom and personal privacy, the government should not be interfering with who you marry.
Now, for a little bit of a personal story. I come from an Indian background. I am 20 years old and stuck in between an arranged marriage and a marriage out of love. Now, the problem? The person I love is Chinese...and my Indian parents only believe in arranged marriage. I am a female and he is a male so gender is not a issue here.
I am grateful that if my parents end up disowning me or kicking me out, I will at least have the support of MOST of the public. I say MOST because I know there are some people who are still stuck in the stone ages and think that gay marriage/interracial marriage should not be allowed. What I see is all of the people who I talk too are in support of me marrying out of the race but those same people are against gay marriage.
I don't know. I think interracial marriage and gay marriage should be allowed. And especially with what I am dealing with, I feel the government should not tell me who I can marry regardless of gender, race, anything....
Gee there is a surprise i am the only who is against beastiality. The courts had no right to legalize this sickening practice, the states enacted these laws to keep the races with there own kind which is how its supposed to be, and as usual the courts come along and destroy a good law.
I am very much for gay marriage and for interracial marriage. In a country where you supposedly have freedom and personal privacy, the government should not be interfering with who you marry.
Well the government did interfere when they destroyed that law. So your statement makes no sense, the laws should be left up to the states not this overzealous big brother government.
Gee there is a surprise i am the only who is against beastiality. The courts had no right to legalize this sickening practice, the states enacted these laws to keep the races with there own kind which is how its supposed to be, and as usual the courts come along and destroy a good law.
Wait... are you saying interracial marriage is the same as bestiality?
Well the government did interfere when they destroyed that law. So your statement makes no sense, the laws should be left up to the states not this overzealous big brother government.
I am sorry but I do not understand. Which law are you talking about? Which law did they destroy?
But that was not a court ruling that over rued a constitutional amendment ;like the earlier ruling against the california law it was a state law. Big difference.
The California ruling from this summer was not to overturn a Constitutional Amendment, it was to overturn a statutory law. The issue before the court currently is whether Proposition 8 is a "revision" or an "amendment".
Constitutional Amendments must be approved by a super-majority of the California legislature. Proposition 8 was not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingOfSouthDakota
Gee there is a surprise i am the only who is against beastiality. The courts had no right to legalize this sickening practice, the states enacted these laws to keep the races with there own kind which is how its supposed to be, and as usual the courts come along and destroy a good law.
I'm unclear whether you're saying that gay people or black people are non-human.
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.
That pesky Due Process clause again...
