NationStates Jolt Archive

In 1967, there was a court case in Virginia. Loving v. Virginia

This court case challenged the current law(s) in the state that prohibited interracial marriage. (antimiscegenation law[s])

The outcome of this case should be obvious, since obviously interracial couples are married in Virginia today.

However, it is the WORDING OF THE OUTCOME that is important.

Quotee from this case are in bold, my words in plain text.

AND I QUOTE:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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.

So denying a couple THE BASIC CIVIL RIGHT OF MARRIAGE based on racial differences is not constitutional. I ask you, why is it allowable to do so based on the non-difference of gender?

LET'S CONTINUE:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

NOW, if you didn't already know, "man/men" are used as generic terms dating back to Germanic origins for "humanity." Therefore, the argumant that animals in any way fall into the legal oversight is null and void. Just a little tidbit for you people who believe that allowing gay marriage would set the stage for people marrying animals.

AND ONWARD WE GO:

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.

There can also be no question that current anti-gay marriage legislation EVERYWHERE rests soley on DISTINCTIONS AND NON-DISTINCTIONS ALIKE, DRAWN ACCORDING TO SEX AND/OR GENDER.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious discrimination based on sexual preference which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only homosexual marriages involving homosexual persons demonstrates that the sexual classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain heterosexual supremacy.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

These statutes also deprive same sex couples throughout the United States of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

We have consistently denied the unconstitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

We have consistently denied the unconstitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of sex and/or gender. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of sexual preference violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943).

So why not apply the same to gay marriage and/or sexual preference too? Doesn't sound very equal to me.

AND ONWARD STILL:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

This is obviously an argument supporting the ban that was then in effect on interracial marriage. So let's extrapolate on this.

First of all, the first part of that statement is effectively true. Long ago, the races were indeed seperate. The "whites" in Europe, the "reds" in what is now known as the Americas, the "blacks" in Africa, the "yellows" in Asia. In the past, the races have indeed been separate. SO WHY THEN DO WE ALLOW THEM TO MARRY NOW IF "ALMIGHTY GOD" DIDN'T INTEND TO? Because "God" never intended that, that's why.

If "God" didn't intend for the races to marry, if "God" had not intended intermarriage, why did he give us the means to intermix, and why make the different races compatible? Similarly, if "God" had not intended for gay marriage, why did he give men the ability to love other men, and women the ability to love other women? And the abilities to be compassionate to each other, and care, and understand, and nurture, and everything else that goes with being in a relationship, and consequently, a marriage?

Now, here comes a Clue-by-Four for all of you who have missed it so...

Have you ever seen a black person with white "patches" of skin? They have a medical condition called Vertiligo. There is currently one treatment for it that is a medical procedure that basically involves draining ALL pigment from that persons skin, effectively making them into an albino (very pale white) color. You do NOT need to have Vertiligo to have this procedure performed.

That's right people. If it's a choice to be gay, it's also a choice to be any other color but albino/white (black, yellow, malay and red). Whether that choice is conceivable or not, whether that choice can effectively be implemented or not is irrelevent. THE CHOICE EXISTS.

It's as difficult to choose to be black as it is to choose to be gay. In fact, it's almost inconceivable to "choose" to be any race. Why would you? After all, you were created that way by [insert deity/deities here]. And such is the way with homosexuality. People aren't gay bercause they choose to be. They are gay because they are born that way. Created that way. Being gay is founded in genetics. There may actually be a "gay gene." Just because we havn't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We've barely covered 1/4 of the gene structure of humans.

All of this and more can be found at this URL:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=388&invol=1

I leave it to you to decide for yourselves, but I think it's pretty clear that marriage itself has already been declared a "basic human right."

Copyright © 2004 Brian Kozina

You go, Brian, good writing, solid point.

Im sorry, but this is not a nail in any coffin whatsoever.

I wish it were.

I too, support gay marriage.

However..its what "marriage" is to be defined as....THATS the issue.

Bush and co, want marriage to be defined as "between a man and a woman"

Thus......you see the loopholes.

bah, not having to get married is one of the greatest joys of homosexuality. i hate assimilationist queens who want to be just like the breeders. get married, join the church, file their taxes together, join the pta. bahhhhhh

Your topic was well written but you lost it early on. When you tried to eliminate the statements that can be said by others (which is a violation of freedom of expression). You said that the argument may try to turn to the position that it could lead to someone claiming that it would lead to laws allowing marriage to animals.
You see the laws pretaining to the black man are quite different than the homosexual side. The laws that prohibitted the marriage of blacks were written at a time when slavery was still legal. The black man was looked upon as an animal or a possession nothing more. With freedom came the necessity of changing laws.
Homosexuals have not been enslaved (nor legally, treated as an animal or a possession) so there is no necessity present to change the laws. Sorry but that is where the weakness lies in your debate.

Bump, because so many people haven't seen this thread yet.

bah, not having to get married is one of the greatest joys of homosexuality. i hate assimilationist queens who want to be just like the breeders. get married, join the church, file their taxes together, join the pta. bahhhhhh

Well, i think what gay couples want is to be recognized as equal, as well as receive the same benefits as married people, such as receiving pensions and joint taxy things. I'm really too young to understand the benefits of marriage, even at 19 :lol: yikes, i can't believe people my age get married....

Your topic was well written but you lost it early on. When you tried to eliminate the statements that can be said by others (which is a violation of freedom of expression).

Actually, no, it's standard practice when making a good argument to anticipate your opposition's argument and answer it before it can be raised. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with it, not even remotely.

As for your comment about the need to change laws being different then as opposed to now, you're wong. For one thing, the basic similarity of the situations is that there is an inequality present which exists upon the basis of an arbitrary classification. In that, the situations are congruous. But, in taking up your argument, I'll remind you that homosexuality was only decades ago declassified as a mental disorder. Thus, laws again need revision, the situations being congruous here, too.

So, your argument only illustrates just how applicable this case is in the decision of whether or not to allow gay marriage.

Bump!

Very well done, Fyreheart. It's heartening to see more people who agree that gays shouldn't be barred from marriage, especially when they bring great arguments like yours. I'm interested in how this all turns out.

*puts on his FlameMaster3000, just in case :wink: *