Going Rogue

[timwakefield 68]

The comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex “marriage” has been argued in state supreme courts and refuted.

Can you elaborate? I find it unlikely that a state supreme court ever defined gay marriage as having zero similarity to interracial marriage. It just doesn't make any sense. They are, objectively, similar. A large group of law-abiding citizens want to be able to freely marry a single other person with whom they are in love. By any measure, that is a similarity. You dodged my question about whether states should have the right to decide on the legality of interracial marriage. So, should they?Cross-post from another thread because it's probably more relevant here now:

Jesus Christ at the defense of marriage act. I don't even want to talk about the other points. Really, Republican party, you consider that to be one of your ten most important points in general? Domestic, international, yadda yadda, of all the things you could talk about, refusing to allow fags to marry is in your top 10? Seriously republicans, why in God's name do you care about homo-marriage? It's beyond preposterous - it's hateful and discriminatory. It's even perhaps worse than the old ban on interracial marriage, because at least people were honest about the reason for it: good ol' fashioned racism, plain and simple. Most people who support a ban on gay marriage, in my experience, pretend to not be discriminating against gays, but instead insist that the ban on gay marriage is to "protect the sanctity of marriage," which, to re-use a phrase, is beyond preposterous. The sanctity of this, really?!Sanctity: noun: 1 : holiness of life and character : godliness2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

[85suited 0]

Can you elaborate? I find it unlikely that a state supreme court ever defined gay marriage as having zero similarity to interracial marriage. It just doesn't make any sense. They are, objectively, similar. A large group of law-abiding citizens want to be able to freely marry a single other person with whom they are in love. By any measure, that is a similarity. You dodged my question about whether states should have the right to decide on the legality of interracial marriage. So, should they?

Unlike anti-miscegenation laws, restrictions against same-sex marriage reinforce, rather than disrupt, the traditional understanding of marriage as a unique relationship between a woman and a man. Marriage traditionally and definitionally has had to do with the sex of each participant. . . . Anti-miscegenation laws, because they interfered with the traditional marriage relationships in pursuit of opprobrious racial segregation policies, had no legitimate connection to the institution of marriage itself. Loving in no way held that the right to marry means the right to marry whomever one wishes. Its import is far more focused: that whatever else marriage is about, it is not about racial segregation. (Morrison v. Sadler, Marion County, Indiana Superior Court, May 7, 2003

[timwakefield 68]

Unlike anti-miscegenation laws, restrictions against same-sex marriage reinforce, rather than disrupt, the traditional understanding of marriage as a unique relationship between a woman and a man. Marriage traditionally and definitionally has had to do with the sex of each participant. . . . Anti-miscegenation laws, because they interfered with the traditional marriage relationships in pursuit of opprobrious racial segregation policies, had no legitimate connection to the institution of marriage itself. Loving in no way held that the right to marry means the right to marry whomever one wishes. Its import is far more focused: that whatever else marriage is about, it is not about racial segregation. (Morrison v. Sadler, Marion County, Indiana Superior Court, May 7, 2003

Fine, and I find that totally unsurprising, but I still disagree with your statement that this ruling "refutes" a comparison between interracial marriage and gay marriage. It simply refutes that one should logically follow the other, which I pretty much agree with. It says nothing about whether the two "struggles" are in any way similar. Like I said, they are, quite objectively, similar in some ways and different in others. I'm still waiting to hear if you think that states should individually be allowed to decide on those miscegenation laws.

[85suited 0]

You dodged my question about whether states should have the right to decide on the legality of interracial marriage. So, should they?

are you trying to equivocate gay marriage and interacial marriage?

[timwakefield 68]

are you trying to equivocate gay marriage and interacial marriage?

I think you mean equate, and I'm going to continue under that assumption.I don't know how many times or ways I have to say it: yes, there are similarities between the previous ban on interracial marriage and the ban on gay marriage. Literally, there are objective similarities that nobody with any common sense could refute. They're both about marriage. They're both about citizens who are banned from legally marrying another specific citizen from a specific set, but who want to. There are also differences.There would also be similarities in a struggle for zoophiliacs wanting the right to marry their pet, or people struggling for the right to have multiple wives, although less so. I also don't know why you refuse to answer the question. I'm assuming your answer is, 'No, it's fine for the federal government to ban anti-miscegenation laws,' but your refusal to answer puzzles me nonetheless.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm pretty sure that having 2 stable, loving, adult parents, or even just one, would be a huge step up for a lot of kids. Which is better: growing up with a mom and a dad, the latter of whom is physically abusive to both you and your mom, OR growing up with 2 dads who love you and treat you as a parent should? Considering how many kids grow up with NO parents who care about them, or a mom and dad who mistreat them, or shuffled from foster home to foster home, etc etc, I feel like gay adoption probably isn't going to bring down the level of child development in this country.Can you explain what you mean here? I am completely confused. In what way is "science" going to show that "aids (sic) is a behaviorally passed disease?" I mean, "science" already knows how AIDS is spread. But I don't know what you mean by "behaviorally passed." I also don't know what "special rights for infected people" you are alluding to. I'm not trying to be facetious - I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.Labeling a thing as "deviant" or "non-deviant" is a matter of opinion, morality, ethics, etc etc. "Science" cannot prove a thing to be distasteful or deviant. It literally isn't possible.You know that old adage about how a guy wearing a pink shirt is secure in his masculinity but a guy calling him a queer for wearing a pink shirt isn't secure in his? That.

You took my post way more serious than I did when I wrote it.

[85suited 0]

I think you mean equate, and I'm going to continue under that assumption.I don't know how many times or ways I have to say it: yes, there are similarities between the previous ban on interracial marriage and the ban on gay marriage. Literally, there are objective similarities that nobody with any common sense could refute. They're both about marriage. They're both about citizens who are banned from legally marrying another specific citizen from a specific set, but who want to. There are also differences.There would also be similarities in a struggle for zoophiliacs wanting the right to marry their pet, or people struggling for the right to have multiple wives, although less so. I also don't know why you refuse to answer the question. I'm assuming your answer is, 'No, it's fine for the federal government to ban anti-miscegenation laws,' but your refusal to answer puzzles me nonetheless.

Yes - equate - you are correctI see you example as being more about race than marriage, which is what the courts have ruled.But I am sure since GLBT is the "NEW" protected class, it is now "legally" the same I can only hope that the polygamy special interest group can get their but in gear or the zoophiliacs

[hblask 1]

I can only hope that the polygamy special interest group can get their but in gear or the zoophiliacs

The "sex with dogs" argument is always an amusing Hail Mary attempt. Thanks for that.I just read somewhere that polygamy is actually more common than monogamy in marriages worldwide. Perhaps the US should reconsider it's policy in light of this evidence. After all, if it's a minority choice, it must be bad.

[vbnautilus 48]

I just read somewhere that polygamy is actually more common than monogamy in marriages worldwide. Perhaps the US should reconsider it's policy in light of this evidence. After all, if it's a minority choice, it must be bad.

Not in current times. Over the course of history, perhaps. Pretty sure the transition has to do with various economic factors.

[Balloon guy 158]

The "sex with dogs" argument is always an amusing Hail Mary attempt. Thanks for that.I just read somewhere that polygamy is actually more common than monogamy in marriages worldwide. Perhaps the US should reconsider it's policy in light of this evidence. After all, if it's a minority choice, it must be bad.

Our church once had a bunch of pastors over from Nigeria and they were explaining a major issue with the church over there.Seems that there were two schools of thought with regards to polygamist who convert.They both believe that once they convert, they should change their marital status to one wife...One was to allow the man to pick his favorite wife from all of them and just have the one wife.the other view was that they must stick with their first wife.Apparently it was causing a lot of trouble in the church over there.Just an aside I thought was interesting..back to gay bashing.

[timwakefield 68]

You took my post way more serious than I did when I wrote it.

Touche.

The "sex with dogs" argument is always an amusing Hail Mary attempt. Thanks for that.

Was this comment directed at me? Because I'm the one who brought up zoophilia, while pretty much arguing about nothing more than semantics. My point was simply that, regardless of any legal parallels or lack thereof, clearly there are some similarities between the ban on gay marriage and the ban on interracial marriage. I'm willing to admit there could be as many differences as similarities (were it possible to quantify something like that), and really I don't know why I got so stuck on that point.I guess my main point on the subject, which I think I did express earlier, is basically "LOL @ sanctity."

[hblask 1]

Was this comment directed at me?

I don't think so, but I'm not interested enough in this side thread to sort it out.In the end, the definition of marriage is between you, your spouse, your friends, your church, and your community. The government should get out of it completely instead of trying to pick which forms of marriage are appropriate.Any laws based on marital status are probably flawed.

[85suited 0]

I don't think so, but I'm not interested enough in this side thread to sort it out.In the end, the definition of marriage is between you, your spouse, your friends, your church, and your community. The government should get out of it completely instead of trying to pick which forms of marriage are appropriate.Any laws based on marital status are probably flawed.

HB - I was just quoting the knuckleballer - Do you think it is a states rights issue?

[loogie 115]

Can't we just make all marriage illegal?

[hblask 1]

HB - I was just quoting the knuckleballer - Do you think it is a states rights issue?

I think having it as a states right issue is better than a federal issue; but I think it should really be an individual issue and not the business of the feds or the states.