[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
It’s a religious matter, over which the state should have no authority.
Conception should require a license.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting how I can so pleasingly agree yet violently disagree with items in the same post. 
[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
Interesting how I can so pleasingly agree yet violently disagree with items in the same post.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it wasn’t a well thought out policy, I admit.
I think it should be a “shall issue” sort of license.
Tris
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
I think it should be a “shall issue” sort of license.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
If the government can decide who has children, it can decide what color they should be, and whether or not they should be aborted, or who is sterilized.
The goal is to keep having sex until we are all the same color. The government obviously wishes to change this.
[QUOTE=Shirley Ujest]
Did this kinda retardedness also pertain to Asians or Hispanics? I’m just curious.
[/QUOTE]
The Racial Integrity Act, passed in Virginia in 1924, prohibited marriage between any white person and any person with non-white ancestry, except those with less than 1/16th Indian blood. (descendents of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, doncha know) It basically lumped all non-white people into one category of inferiority.
source: my daughter’s senior seminar paper. I could look up her sources, but I’m lazy
[QUOTE=Monty]
June 12 is “Loving Day.” Do something special to celebrate that day.
[/QUOTE]
I always try to do something special on June the 12th.
[sub]It’s my birthday. 
[/sub]
Tris – I sincerely hope they allow a “Concealed Carry” permit in that case! 
Actually, there are a couple of things about the whole interracial marriage business which make me sigh.
First, one of the canards I hear about allowing gay marriage on a state-by-state basis is it will mean some marriages will be legal in one state but not another. Since interracial marriages were legal in some states before Loving vs. Virginia and I suspect common in Hawaii based on what I saw while I was living there, we’ve already been in that position. It didn’t tear the country apart or destroy the morals of good, decent Americans. :rolleyes:
Second, I gather those who are claiming a Biblical basis for opposing interracial marriage haven’t read the book of Ruth in the Old Testament recently. Ruth is a Moabite, a member of what the Jews considered a different race. Nevertheless, not only does she marry a good, Jewish man, she goes on to become an ancestress of Jesus Christ, Himself. If I ever run into someone who opposes mixing with other races on a Christian basis again, I may ask them about that.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I’ll bet you couldn’t find one founder who thought it should be legal in his home state, let alone mandated nationwide.
[/qUOTE]
Finding the words of a Founder defending mixed marriage might be tough. But you can certainly find states where it was legal (and illegal) at the founding. New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey never imposed restrictions on “racial mixing.” Pennsylvania got rid of its law in 1780 (between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution), and New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey adopted laws or constitutions affirming the right to interracial marriage at the time the Constitution was adopted. I doubt that a claim that we “couldn’t find one founder” who agreed with that principle would bear up under examination given that there were affirmative laws passed by somebody in that period.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
If you are talking gay sex, please convey my deepest sympathies to your wife,who probably thought she was getting into a real loving marriage, not just a license to have sex.
[/QUOTE]
Personally, I’ve always gotten the impression that marriage was a license not to have sex.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Finding the words of a Founder defending mixed marriage might be tough. But you can certainly find states where it was legal (and illegal) at the founding. New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey never imposed restrictions on “racial mixing.” Pennsylvania got rid of its law in 1780 (between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution), and New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey adopted laws or constitutions affirming the right to interracial marriage at the time the Constitution was adopted. I doubt that a claim that we “couldn’t find one founder” who agreed with that principle would bear up under examination given that there were affirmative laws passed by somebody in that period.
[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected there. However, my basic point still stands when you click on that link you provided. Look at all of the states in red throughout the years and decide whether there is a historical tendency from the foundation of America onward that would imply a right to interracial marriage.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
What conduct? Contracting a marriage? Living together as spouses thereafter? If you are talking gay sex, please convey my deepest sympathies to your wife,who probably thought she was getting into a real loving marriage, not just a license to have sex. And if that’s not why you married, why in the world would you accuse a gay couple of having that as their motive for marrying?
[/QUOTE]
Wow, where in the hell did that come from? Of course marriage is not just a license to have sex. Plenty of fornication out there.
[QUOTE=Really Not]
Personally, I’ve always gotten the impression that marriage was a license not to have sex.
[/QUOTE]
Preach it, brother.