Monday marks 50th anniversary of Loving decision on interracial marriage

So that your comments will not be misconstrued by those who read them.

It is less about "race" than it is your attitude toward others.

There is no "right to marry" in the Consitution, but state laws have something to say about it. Since state laws have something to say about it, the Constitution applies when the state laws undermine the rights of a citizen under the Constitution. I have explained that in previous posts.

This is not difficult to understand.

I'm not trying to brand you a racist. You are making the case for it yourself. I am asking you to refute it with one statement. You are unwilling to do that.

I have a hard time believing you are not intelligent enough to understand how the 14th Amendment (and the Constitution for that matter) works. There seems to be something else going on, like a wholesale rejection of the concept of the 14th Amendment where all persons are treated equally under the law.

You are simply making assertions and have failed to demonstrate your point. The only point here seems to be you have an issue with the 14th Amendment and with me.

 

If they are misconstrued, it's deliberate. As you have demonstrated.

Go ahead. Play the race card. Call me a racist. Stop hinting around at it.

If you really cared to make a legitimate argument instead of just race baiting, you would copy and paste the constitution's right to marry.

Right here.

Or you can play the race card some more. Your choice.

 

I have.

I even responded to your objections, but you have refused to deal with the issue and have thrown out false accusations and insults.

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.
​

I know this is not going to settle it because of the nature of your character.

 

No you haven't. You even admitted that the right to marry did not exist in the constitution.

"There is no "right to marry" in the Consitution," you said. Now you claim you have posted it.

Here. I'll help you out. This concept is not difficult to understand and many in the legal profession understand it as well.


JURIST - There is No Constitutional Right to Marriage ... Of Any Kind


There is No Constitutional Right to Marriage ... Of Any Kind


The Constitution provides no citizen of any gender (or color)* or orientation a Constitutional right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. It is not mentioned, and therefore it is not a power delegated to the federal government to regulate. For lawyers, judges and in particular, Supreme Court justices, the inquiry on this issue should end there—right where silence demands judicial inaction.

The Constitution is an elegant document that is rigid in its respect for federalism. Its framework of powers is encased in a document designed to require overwhelming support to change. So hard is it to amend the Constitution, it has only been done 27 times in our history. Since 1971, it has been amended properly only once, and inconsequentially. Mostly, the Constitution has been amended repeatedly and improperly by the Supreme Court ... a job to which it is not tasked and for which it is ill-equipped.

The Supreme Court's mandate is determining the Constitutionality of laws. It is not charged with creating new rights in the Constitution.

*inserted by poster


Now, call me a racist. That seems to be the limit to your understanding of what is really a very simple concept.

​

 

For that to apply, marriage would have to be a Constitutional right in the first place.

 

Our Constitution enumerates rights, it doesn't grant them.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- The Constitution

 

14 th amendment Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.--The Constitution


"Judicially creating a right to marriage ignores the Constitution, eviscerates the 10th Amendment and is an improper judicial amendment of the Constitution. It defies all principles of interpretation or construction. For the Supreme Court to create a Constitutional right to marriage, it must first ignore and render dead the 10th Amendment, that pesky little part of our Bill of Rights that states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

There's nothing to "admit." No one has argued that marriage is mentioned in the Constitution at all. What has been demonstrated is that the right to equal treatment under the law (under the 14th Amendment) is applicable to state laws regarding marriage. How in the world have you not followed that line of argument, whether or not you agree with it?

Hey look, you're actually presenting a link to an argument that leads you to believe what you do!

Fantastic! That's how adults act instead of throwing out insults and accusations.

I need to take some serious time to read through this and review the cases referenced. I will come back to this once I have done that.

When you don't provide a rational basis for your belief, throw insults, and refuse to condemn laws against marriage between people of two differing ethnicities, it is completely fair to wonder what is the issue. Moreover, you still haven't condemned those laws, although you have finally responded with something concrete, so that's an improvement.

 

So it wasn't a mistake. You made a false statement on purpose.

Got it.

 

Wrong again.

Your preconceived notions keep getting in your way.

 

Not really. It has NEVER been about a "constitutional right" to marriage, no matter what our friend Carpro and the author of the article say. It is about equal protection under the law in the 14th Amendment. Read the decision for yourself and see how it was decided.

 

And now you have moved to lying.

 

Don't bother. If you're not already familiar with those decisions, you're a lost cause.

I'm done here. You're a total waste of time.

 

I know exactly how the court over reached in their decision.