Arguements against same-sex marriage mirror those against interracial marriage

[Baltimatt]

Great article

Using language that would make many people cringe today, in the 19th century and more than halfway through the 20th, pastors, lawyers and courts pronounced that marriages between white and blacks were unnatural, violated God’s will, would destroy the institution of marriage and would eventually lead to the legalization of polygamy and incest.

Kentucky’s high court, for example, said in 1904 that the state had the same right and duty to block blacks and whites from marrying as it did “idiots” or blood relatives — to protect the “vitality of the offspring.” As recently as 1964, a judge in Louisville sent five children to orphanages and foster homes rather than let them live with their white mother after she married a black man.

Then there's this:

Other gay marriage opponents, such as Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton, say that comparing opposition to racial intermarriage and same-sex marriage is “offensive” because the former was part of the “intrinsic human evil” of racism while “marriage between men and women is a profound human good.”

And no one is arguing that male-female marriage is not a "profound human good."

[pickles]

It's simply a matter of time before it's the law of the land. The courts have decided the issue, as they should have.

[veritas]

It should have been left to the states, just like abortion. Having said that, I'll be glad when it's over, one way or the other.

[Baltimatt]

I should point out that blacks and whites living together as husband and wife was often a criminal offense, while the same can't be said for same-sex couples. However, my point is that the arguments against both types of marriage are eerily the same.

[Baltimatt]

It should have been left to the states, just like abortion. Having said that, I'll be glad when it's over, one way or the other.

So, are you saying that anti-miscengenation statues should have been left to the states and the the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving v. Virginia?

[gonzoliberal]

Both are civil rights issues.

Our modern republic can deal with universal equality.

Really!

[veritas]

So, are you saying that anti-miscengenation statues should have been left to the states and the the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving v. Virginia?

No, as we've discussed numerous times before, states were already offering heterosexual couples marriage. What they were offering to one couple, they had to offer to others similarly situated. The crux of the case is whether the mere existence of traditional marriage confers an obligation on the state to offer gay marriage. I don't think that's a sound argument from a Constitutional standpoint.

[Baltimatt]

Veritas--

Yes, but they were offering people marriage within their own race, so it was thought to be fair. The supreme court disagreed.

Mainly, I was taking issue with your use of the rather vague "it" in post #3.

[veritas]

Veritas--

Yes, but they were offering people marriage within their own race, so it was thought to be fair. The supreme court disagreed.

Mainly, I was taking issue with your use of the rather vague "it" in post #3.

The SC saw marriage as a man-woman issue, not a color issue. The "it" refers to the gay marriage question. IMO, the SC should remand it to the states unless they say the Constitution confers a right to marriage, which I think is a very difficult thing to prove. You never know, though. The court has plenty of liberals who will discover one, just as they did on abortion.

[Baltimatt]

Veritas--

The supreme court has repeatedly found a right to marriage. Whether it pertains to same-sex couples has yet to be decided.

[veritas]

Veritas--

The supreme court has repeatedly found a right to marriage. Whether it pertains to same-sex couples has yet to be decided.

Yea, I was a bit unclear. I was speaking of gay marriage. My feeling is that the court will rule for gay marriage but I don't see where the Constitution speaks to marriage at all, straight or gay. We're fast reaching a point where state governments are going to be superfluous except as conduits for directives handed down from Washington. That is not what the founders established.

[kudzu]

my point is that the arguments against both types of marriage are eerily the same.

No, they are not.

Homosexuals may or may not have a choice. People ABSOLUTELY do not have a choice in their racial makeup.

[Baltimatt]

kudzu--

Did you actually read the article? Where does it mention whether something was a choice, other than the choice to marry someone of another race or the same sex?

[kudzu]

kudzu--

Did you actually read the article? Where does it mention whether something was a choice, other than the choice to marry someone of another race or the same sex?

No, Can you give me a good reason why I should have ?

I have an equal disdain for the "homos are just like the rest of us" crowd as I do for the "homos should/will burn in Hell" crowd.

Your thread title suggested something less than an objective assessment.

[gonzoliberal]

The blind will not see...

[Baltimatt]

No, Can you give me a good reason why I should have ?

I have an equal disdain for the "homos are just like the rest of us" crowd as I do for the "homos should/will burn in Hell" crowd.

Your thread title suggested something less than an objective assessment.

If you wish to comment on things in an informed manner, maybe you should have read the article. Of course, that doesn't stop anyone here.

[kudzu]

If you wish to comment on things in an informed manner

Dude, seriously ?