Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does this take care of all of the benefits of marriage granted under current Federal law like employee benefits, the treatment of married members of the military, etc?
Ask your liberal buddies, they're the ones who are trying to redefine what marriage is.
Marriage has been redefined at least a dozen times in the United States alone. Or does it only count as "redefinition" when it's changed to something you don't like?
Considering in 1958 96% of Americans opposed redefining marriage to allow mixed race couples to marry, I'm guessing you would have claimed liberals were redefining it back then too.
Marriage has been redefined at least a dozen times in the United States alone. Or does it only count as "redefinition" when it's changed to something you don't like?
Considering in 1958 96% of Americans opposed redefining marriage to allow mixed race couples to marry, I'm guessing you would have claimed liberals were redefining it back then too.
So called "mixed race" marriage wasn't illegal since the beginning of this country's foundation it was adopted because of racism, and it was only banned in some southern states.
Marriage wasn't "redefined" when the race ban took place.
In order to turn back the clock on that someone would have to prove that there is a fundamental difference between black humans and white humans. There was no ban against white and asian. You'd have to define what a "race" is, and because there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, it will never be overturned.
So called "mixed race" marriage wasn't illegal since the beginning of this country's foundation it was adopted because of racism, and it was only banned in some states.
Yes it was. It was illegal for blacks to even marry at all in the beginnings of the United States. Then they were allowed to marry, only with permission of their slave owner. Then they were allowed to marry whites.
White only marriage was the only legal form of marriage in early America.
May be I'm unsure of your position. From your posts, it appears you don't like this ruling. In other words, you believe there is a constitutional ground for DOMA. In that case, you should explain:
What would be the constitutional ground for DOMA? Let me see the prescribed power in the US constitution designated to the federal government to do so.
So you are arguing with me, but unsure of my position, even though I very clearly said
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Once again thats exactly what I said would/should happen. The gay marriage issue is a legal issue, not a public perception one, so the issue needs fought in the court, not in politics.
What part of this dont you understand?
Tell me exactly where I said there was constitutional grounds for DOMA, or where I said the US Constitution designates such powers to the federal government.
Why do you non stop lie about what others say in order to argue against them?
Yes it was. It was illegal for blacks to even marry at all in the beginnings of the United States. Then they were allowed to marry, only with permission of their slave owner. Then they were allowed to marry whites.
White only marriage was the only legal form of marriage in early America.
No it wasn't.
Blacks and whites who were indentured servants did marry in the 1600's. It was not forbidden in the USA since the beginning of this country. The laws forbidding it were adopted during slavery.
Those laws were instituted in order to sow the seeds of inequality as the foundation for allowing slavery from a legal standpoint, to say that blacks are not equal to whites or any other "so called" race. That was how they were able to justify enslaving humans.
The gay argument isn't nearly on the same level as using race to justify repealing interracial marriage laws.
Let's prove that gay marriages are equal in every way to a heterosexual marriage.
"Europeans" are equal to "Africans" are equal to "Asians" or any other ethnic extraction of humans.
So called "mixed race" marriage wasn't illegal since the beginning of this country's foundation it was adopted because of racism, and it was only banned in some southern states.
Marriage wasn't "redefined" when the race ban took place.
In order to turn back the clock on that someone would have to prove that there is a fundamental difference between black humans and white humans. There was no ban against white and asian. You'd have to define what a "race" is, and because there is no scientific basis for the concept of race, it will never be overturned.
In the beginning of the country, marriage and slavery were state issues. To pretend policies were universal across the country is just silly.
In the beginning there were only 13 colonies.
There were no laws against blacks and whites marrying when indentured servants came to work in the colonies.
There were blacks who came here that were not imported during the middle passage, and they were free.
Read the information on the links I provided for clarification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
