Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
I love being Canadian.
Unfortunately, many times anti-gays will point to Canada for examples of how allowing gay equality will squelch their free speech rights to blast our sex lives from the pulpit.
But this Loving v. Virginia ruling.. outrageous! So let me get this straight: Since my cat is a different race of animal than I am, does that mean I can marry him? If I can marry different races of people, does that mean I can marry different amounts of people too?
Emily, you can marry your cat as long as your cat is a legal adult in your state and can prove that it is of sound mind to enter into a legal contract on its own. It will almost certainly be required to speak English, or at least write it.
And this is demonstrably not Canada, which is good to point out to those who bring it up. It is equally valid to claim that gay people must have legal protection because otherwise we will be put to death under the laws of Iran, which obviously apply in Minnesota, right?
OH NO!!!
Now they are going to teach children as young as kindergardeners that mixed-race marriage is equal to traditional marriage. They already have in Massachusetts!!
While I and others here understand what you mean Emily, wouldn’t it be better to say, different species of animal? đ
So I guess their next step after losing the gay marriage fight they are going to be out there in full force to pass an amendment not allowing marriage between different species of animals. Won’t that be fun.
Americans are tired of being told by judges they know what’s best for them.
Articles like that one could easily be (and most assuredly were) used to counter Loving v. Virginia. One must venture into the absurd to make a distinction (i.e. as Emily has already illustrated). That was 1967 and the knowledge that such incredibly heinous laws could have existed and have been enforced during my lifetime, is sobering to me. It also makes the current marriage issue easier to believe, if no less difficult to understand.
Conservatives won’t think race is the same as sexuality. Of course back then people didn’t think race was worthy of special consideration.
Same story. different time. Its just sad theres not alot we can do about it.
I remember a few months back (can’t find a link, sorry) where a proposal was made to end marriages that could not produce children. The thought: If marriage is solely for the production of children, then if people can’t produce children, it should be disolved. People were irate! But yet, they drag out the old saw even though we all know that the fight has nothing to do with children. It frustrates me.
That proposal was in the state of Washington a year or two ago after the state Supreme Court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage.
“Unfortunately, many times anti-gays will point to Canada for examples of how allowing gay equality will squelch their free speech rights to blast our sex lives from the pulpit.
But this Loving v. Virginia ruling.. outrageous! So let me get this straight: Since my cat is a different race of animal than I am, does that mean I can marry him? If I can marry different races of people, does that mean I can marry different amounts of people too?”
A RACE is something totally different from SPECIES!
Within SPECIES there are races, so a RACE is a member of for instance the Black Race, the CAUCASION race, etc. etc. were within the SPECIES of cats there are LIONS, JAGUARS, etc. etc.
And yes, between the RACES inside SPECIES marriages (or connections…) are possible!
So then, Adrian, a jaguar can marry a lion?
Well, marriage papers are manmade things, BUT when one considers that nature allows breeding (or when u like copulation) within the species, the answer would be yes….
Though they would not get a document telling anyone they married… I think though that the result would be cute though…. (grins)
haha jaguars marrying lions, we’re getting into a whole other weird area here…
Yes, I’m not sure why the animal references were introduced, but not quite the tone I would going for đ
Coincidently… just how “activist” was that 1967 SCOTUS?
Polls show that it was only about that time that a plurality of US adults had come to think that miscegenation was “acceptable”.
Although it had been slowly declining for decades, prior to 1967 the majority thought that black people should not be allowed to marry white people. Or was that white people shouldn’t be allowed to marry black people? Probably the former, I suspect.
Yeah, really activist. If they’d declared it in 1922, that would have been something.
The problem is that certain religious groups want the government to define marriage as they do. But marriage has many faces – “gay marriage” is just one of them.
A “traditional” marriage does not exist except in catechisms and people’s imagination.
What is amazing to me is that an institution that they claim is Sacred and Holy and ordained by God needs government protection. I guess God isn’t strong enough to handle this one.
And what really gets my goat is why ROMAN Catholics are so gun-ho about this. They will protect marriage at all cost. I am an Orthodox Catholic. The most important sacrament in the traditional Orthodox Church has ALWAYS been the Eucharist. Marriage was #7 on the Top seven sacraments. In fact, it was debated for at least 1400 years as to whether it was a true sacrament or not.
And yet, most non-Catholic churches see the Eucharist as a mere symbol NOT the true body and blood of Christ. So then, why aren’t Pope Catholics up in arms about that? Why don’t they get on their high horse and demand the government protect the sacrament of the Holy and Sacred Eucharist? It is suppose to be the most important of all Christian sacraments.
Why don’t they? Because they’ll tell you that no government needs to protect what God already protects and holds sacred and holy. So, how come God is so big and strong with the Eucharist, and yet an utter whimp when it comes to Marriage? Why do the Pope Catholics need a government to back them up?
If Pope Catholics are secure in their belief in the Sacred Eucharist despite not having a government protecting the sanctity of this particular sacrament, then how do they justify needing the government to protect the sacrament of marriage?
And now they wine and dine with religions that up until a few years ago they would not have been caught dead with – Mormons, Evangelicals. I guess because hate, like love, unites. But unlike love, hate unites to destroy, and will eventually it will turn on them. Sad.