Monday marks 50th anniversary of Loving decision on interracial marriage

Only if you want to be an ignorant person completely out of touch with reality.

 

Because I can't square your comments with any other position. I tried...

 

You have not made a statement of fact.

 

Why should I care what you "think"?

I made a statement of fact. If you can prove it wrong, do so.

 

Such blind ignorance is shameful.

I stated that there is no constitutional "right' to marriage. You agreed.

Fact.

 

Lol, ok. I'm not trying to prove you right or wrong, since your opinion on the matter is your opinion.

If you don't believe that a state should be able to ban interracial marriage, then how should the issue have been resolved?

 

The Govt. has no business dealing with marriage at all.

 

The issue should have been decided and/or enforced by Congress, not the Supreme court.

That's the law.

 

I apologize for not responding earlier, but work, travel, family and other real world concerns has kept me preoccupied with other things.

It is. Maybe I can help you see the truth of this issue.

You did state that.

Not quite. I agreed that marriage was left to the states, but the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, definitely applies to marriage.

Let's refresh our memory of the 14th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

The most important part of this Amendment is Section 1, although Section 5 also generally applies.

All persons born in the United States (or properly naturalized) are both federal and state citizens. "No State" can deny a citizen the privileges, liberties, or equal protection under the law. Therefore, laws that use ethnicity ("race") as a basis to restrict marriage fail to provide equal protection under the law.

Actually Congress decided the issue in 1866, and a majority of states by 1868, so your concern about Congress being involved is moot. They were, a long time before this case was UNANIMOUSLY decided by the Supreme Court in a surprisingly brief decision. The Justices saw the issue as self-evident, as do most other people.

The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution and enforce its provisions and protections. That's the law, not what you are asserting.

I suggest you read the text of the decision. It will help you understand what it was all about.

 

Why would it matter?

The court continues to ignore section 5 as they twist and turn the 14th to say whatever they want it to say and then expect enforcement of their twisted decisions, usurping the role given to Congress by the very law they quote.

Thanks to their judicial legislating, women can kill their babies by the millions. The list goes on.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I don't know what you are addressing here -- perhaps my suggestion that you read up on the decision?

In any case, it matters because the Constitution matters. The Constitution embodies the basic principles of the United States and recognizes the God-given rights of humanity, prohibiting the government or other persons in authority/power from infringing upon those God-given rights. If those rights are violated, the justice system (represented by the courts and law enforcement agencies) will seek to right the wrongs.

Denial of the right to marry based on ethnicity ("race") is a moral evil. Do you agree?

The reason I ask the question is that you have been making the arguments that someone who opposes Loving v. Virginia would make. I want to give you every opportunity to make you position clear.

In what way? Section 5 is there to point out that nothing in the Amendment prohibits Congress from enforcement or expansion of law based on this Amendment. In effect, it broadens its reach - something you seem to be complaining about.

Nope. The 14th Amendment says what it says. Lots of people don't like it (those who want to oppress others, especially), but it has a specific meaning and scope.

Sounds like you are just belly-aching here.

Actually, no. It seems clear you don't understand the 14th Amendment, or don't want to understand it.

In regard to abortion rulings (I don't know if you are thinking of a specific one), the 14th Amendment only applies in the sense of applying equal protection under the law. The "right to privacy" that is the cornerstone of the "right to abortion" is based on the Griswold v. Connecticut decision of 1965.

Blaming the 14th Amendment for abortion is like blaming a murder on a gun.

But foolish people do things like that all the time.

 

Pretty obvious there's a lot you don't know. It's never stopped you before from substituting insults for facts. I don't expect it here either.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You are right. There are lots of things I don't know. Yet, you haven't been able to refute anything I've said about this subject. I've laid everything out for you. Want to take a shot?

I've also noticed that you have refused to answer my question about whether or not it is morally evil to deny someone the right to marry based upon their ethnicity ("race"). That is quite telling.

I have provided many facts. You have provided insults and venom.

A tree is known by its fruit.

 

You should have stopped there.

Guarantees you can resist making some kind of snarky comment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have noticed that you cannot bring yourself to say that preventing "interracial" marriage is wrong.

I suspect that it is a problem for you. Prove me wrong by affirming "interracial" marriage.

 

Why should i ?

it simply doesn't matter.

You're like any liberal that wants to play the race card. You want this to be all about race. To me, It's not.

It's about marriage and there is no "right" to marry in the constitution, no matter what your skin color. I've said this before. You simply choose to ignore it in your zeal to brand me a racist. That seems to be all you really care about.

The Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to affirm a right that just doesn't exist in the constitution. One of many they have twisted the 14th to invent.