Of course I see the difference. I think one thing you’re not getting because of your focus on the Loving case is that according to my reading, which I’m certainly willing to be proven wrong about mind you, that in an area where anti-miscegenation laws were in place they couldn’t get a marriage license. The marriage never happened. From Wiki:
Emphasis mine. So the ceremony couldn’t be preformed. That doesn’t mean they got married and were dinged, it meant that the ceremony itself was barred. Am I wrong about that?
Doesn’t that mean that they couldn’t be executed in the first place? This is just what’s happening today, some areas allow SSM and others don’t.
In any case, it isn’t my contention that laws wouldn’t have to be changed to allow SSM. It’s my contention that SS couples deserve and should have that right. In the same way that blacks and women deserved and should have had the right to vote before they legally did. We’ve spent centuries trying to perfect our system and in fits and starts give the same rights for everyone. No reason to stop now.
You’re wrong in this sense: you ignored my question What happens if the marriage is performed anyway, contrary to the law?
Consider the case of San Francisco. Mayor Gavin Newsome began issuing licenses to same-sex couples, contrary to the law. He said he did it because, in his view, the law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
What happened to those marriages? Legally, they never existed. Even though a license had been issued, the marriage was deemed void ab initio.
Now, what happened in miscengenation territory when or if someone solmenized a marriage, even though the law forbid it? The person was charged with a crime, and the marriage could even be anulled, voided, but it was NOT void ab initio. The marriage was agreed to have existed, even if it was later broken up by law.
THIS is the difference. The same-sex marriage is thought to not exist, to simply not be possible to accomplish. The interracial marriage was thought to be repugnant, so if it was accomplished, the law provided that it could be undone, and provided penalities for doing it.
I’m once again unclear on the point you’re trying to make. I’m guessing that you are implying that those who agree with you are in some way hypocritical or inconsistent in that they believe that SSM should be legal while (for instance) incestuous marriage should not. Is that, in fact, your position?
If so, I’d argue that it’s a pretty unsupportable position. I believe that people should have the right to claim that gay people are inferior. I also believe that people should not have the right to actively incite people to go down to the gay district and start killing fags. I believe that some limitations on free speech should exist and others shouldn’t. That’s not being a hypocrite or being inconsistent, that’s called having a nuanced view of a complicated issue.
And if that’s not your position, please clarify precisely what point you’re trying to make.
When our laws were codified gay marriage was not on our radar. Therefore it is likely no mention of a man and woman only were there at all. It would be assumed to be a man and woman.
That would suggest that specifying marriage is between a man and woman would be the change.
Actually, I’m correct even in that one trivial blot you’re focusing on. From:
That sounds like marriages between blacks and whites can’t happen to me.
You’re focusing on nits, and still you utterly fail to prove your case.
Back to the subject at hand, anti-miscegenation laws are a perfect analogy to the modern refusal of SSM to homosexuals. It’s all based in the same sort of disdain. Pretending to flag up an argument like, “but they could get married, they just got thrown in prison” is honestly a laughable argument. Right in line with Yoric’s, “gays have the same rights, they can get married to someone of the opposite sex too.”
Hmm, this thread title is kinda funny coming from a board as liberal as the Straight Dope. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for Gay marriage, and against legislation banning abortion. While I’m not Libertarian politically, I’m very against wholesale government nosing about in every aspect of our lives. IME, liberals are just as bad as conservatives about letting the government dictate every aspect of our lives. For example, I live in Washington state, very liberal, and I can’t even buy hard liquor online. I have to order it through the Washington board of liquor (they run the stores) and have them order specialty liquors (and it takes 12 weeks).
No, people voting other peoples rights away. I.E the moral conservatives want to have the government ‘nose in’ and make it a point to make it illegal.
The question/debate inherent in the title is that the OP (likely a liberal, though not necessarily, on a liberal slanted message board) is wondering why, essentially, they want the government to regulate such things (i.e ban it).
I’m only pointing out that there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
Seriously, did you bother reading my post, or are you jumping to conclusions because I’m not a liberal I am against gay marriage? Did you NOT see where I said I think Gay Marriage is ok in my book?
Yeah, if anything prohibiting gay marriage is the government nosing into people’s private lives. If social conservatives weren’t (in general) such massive hypocrites they’d realize that and support SSM.
I’m not claiming that. I’m saying that the title is inherently flawed with hypocrisy. A liberal (i.e MORE government) is asking conservatives that want the government to ban something, why they would vote other peoples rights away.
My analogy was the liquor thing. My “right” to buy specialty liquor online is being infringed because some liberals wanted to regulate alcohol (i.e take away my right).
It isn’t perfect, but I’m not making an argument against/for gay marriage. Only the humor of the title.
It’s like a black kettle asking another black kettle why it is black.
Thanks I was wondering if I was speaking another language. I haven’t had anything to drink today and I slept plenty, so I didn’t see where I was coming across as anything other than honest.
FWIW, while I am fiscally conservative, because of the threads on this board (and some of the Ted talks), I’m even in line with the whole healthcare thing(don’t tell my wife, she is conservative and against health care, but she is a PT and thinks it will cause her to make less money).
Seeing as my post got either ignored or lost in the discussion, I just want to point out this error here by pan1.
As I posted earlier, marriage predates at the very least Christianity and Islam. I’m not sure about Judaism as frankly I don’t know enough about the history of that religion.
As long as there have been humans beings they have been pairing (or grouping) off and applying ceremonies to it.
Religious people commandeering marriage and pretending that their religion invented it and hence they should have total control of it really gets my goat.
I was wondering if I was speaking another language. I haven’t had anything to drink today and I slept plenty, so I didn’t see where I was coming across as anything other than honest.