Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marriage is a civil right in the US
nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 304 (317206)
06-03-2006 1:09 PM


In a discussion of civil rights and gay marriage in another thread, Faith made the claim that, at least in the US, marriage was a privilage rather than a right.
After a little research, I found that this was an unfounded claim, at least according to the United States Supreme Court.
The following is an excerpt from the 1963 Loving v. Virginia descision of that court:
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 discriminations. 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.
Interestingly, the objections of the state of Virginia were expressed thusly by the Judghe who found them guilty:
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.
Sounds familiar to Faith's and others' arguments; it isn't "natural", God never meant for marriage to be like that, etc.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 06-03-2006 1:14 PM nator has replied
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 1:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2006 12:23 AM nator has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 2 of 304 (317207)
06-03-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
06-03-2006 1:09 PM


Basic Civil Rights
So its a basic civil right for any two consenting adults to become married? (Or should be)
I have no problems with that. I married Jesus and didnt even have to go to court to do so!
The church can't legislate morality anymore than God can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 1:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 1:21 PM Phat has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 304 (317209)
06-03-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
06-03-2006 1:14 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
quote:
So its a basic civil right for any two consenting adults to become married? (Or should be)
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 06-03-2006 1:14 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 3:23 PM nator has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 304 (317212)
06-03-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
06-03-2006 1:09 PM


I think you've misrepresented me, Schraf. It would help if you added a link to show where I supposedly said that, as it's a matter of context. I believe I was adapting to various things you said. If you said it was a right then I said it was a right that one had to be qualifed for, etc.
Also, the comparison between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to interracial marriage is false. Marriage was called a right in that legal case for heterosexual couples. Your extending it to gays is not justified, a form of begging the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 1:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 4:12 PM Faith has replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 5 of 304 (317244)
06-03-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nator
06-03-2006 1:21 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
So its a basic civil right for any two consenting adults to become married? (Or should be)
the US is supposed to be about freedom not limited by anyone, not freedom that is under the jurisdiction and morality of the church. so thats an EXTREEME yes. I may not like the idea of homosexuality, but it harms me not. I also dont like the idea of pornography, but again thats one of those rights that you CANNOT restrict or take away (i.e. speech).
Edited by Damouse, : sp
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 1:21 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 3:47 PM Damouse has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 304 (317252)
06-03-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Damouse
06-03-2006 3:23 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
the US is supposed to be about freedom not limited by anyone, not freedom that is under the jurisdiction and morality of the church. so thats an EXTREEME yes. I may not like the idea of homosexuality, but it harms me not. I also dont like the idea of pornography, but again thats one of those rights that you CANNOT restrict or take away (i.e. speech).
It is really really strange, considering the adamant conviction expressed on this point by so many here, that this nation which GAVE us the first amendment, and was known throughout the world for its experiment in civil rights, and practically synonymous with the word "freedom" got by just fine for the first 200 years of its existence during which it LEGALLY PROHIBITED both pornography and homosexual acts.
But does this cause any of you to rethink what is really MEANT by freedom and rights such as the right of free speech? Oddly, no, you manage to convince yourselves that whatever SEEMS to you it should mean is what it MUST mean.
I suppose there is some confusion over the fact that slavery was also permitted in this free nation. Seems to make you all trip over your own feet, so unable are you to distinguish between valid and invalid meanings of the terms.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 3:23 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 3:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 9 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 4:17 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 304 (317255)
06-03-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
06-03-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
quote:
It is really really strange, considering the adamant conviction expressed on this point by so many here, that this nation which GAVE us the first amendment, and was known throughout the world for its experiment in civil rights, and practically synonymous with the word "freedom" got by just fine for the first 200 years of its existence during which it LEGALLY PROHIBITED both pornography and homosexual acts.
...and interracial marriage and allowing women and blacks to vote and own property, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 304 (317256)
06-03-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
06-03-2006 1:31 PM


quote:
I believe I was adapting to various things you said. If you said it was a right then I said it was a right that one had to be qualifed for, etc.
Yes, that's what you and I said in the other thread.
I don't believe that this thread's OP misrepresents you at all.
quote:
Also, the comparison between opposition to gay marriage and opposition to interracial marriage is false.
That is a matter of interpretation, and clearly, better legal minds than you (namely, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts) have found a different one than yours.
quote:
Marriage was called a right in that legal case for heterosexual couples.
Of course, the decision says "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,", not "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of heterosexuals and not gays."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 4:20 PM nator has not replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 9 of 304 (317258)
06-03-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
06-03-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Basic Civil Rights
who exactly is "you all"?
And on the other counts, no right was set in stone, i.e. you cannot have slaves, display pornography, ect. If the right had been challenged,i.e. taken to the supreme court, it would have had to have been revoked under the first. The constitution didn't say you cannot have slaves, did it? But with the addition of the 15th(??) amendment, it became unlawful. Why are you scrounging at loopholes? It could not have listed every unlawful practice.
I cannot stand ideaologies like yours(faith) which say that the US is really a consparicy, out to get everyone, and freedom is a trick. Freedom is freedom, as long as i doesn't infringe on anyone elses' freedoms.

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 304 (317260)
06-03-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
06-03-2006 4:12 PM


Of course, the decision says "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,", not "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of heterosexuals and not gays."
Don't be stupid. The way you read it means there are no qualifications for marriage whatever. Siblings could marry. Well, it's a "basic civil right of man." You could marry a child or a dog. But that hasn't been allowed in the West. Until now of course. I suppose it's coming considering this kind of confused thinking you are so committed to.
And I would really appreciate a link. I believe you misrepresented me. Thank you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 06-03-2006 4:12 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 4:45 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 06-03-2006 11:03 PM Faith has replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 11 of 304 (317270)
06-03-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-03-2006 4:20 PM


You could marry a child or a dog
They would probably list it under animal abuse .

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 4:20 PM Faith has not replied

gearkat
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 304 (317272)
06-03-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
06-03-2006 4:20 PM


Faith, you miss the last line of the Supreme Court Decision presented above:
"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."
Key being a person of another race. Hence, dogs and other animals are not covered.
As gay people are part of a race as well, they are covered. By this analysis the government can't pass a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriages.
gearkat
Edited by gearkat, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AdminJar, posted 06-03-2006 4:57 PM gearkat has not replied
 Message 14 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 4:59 PM gearkat has not replied
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 06-03-2006 5:09 PM gearkat has not replied
 Message 17 by iano, posted 06-03-2006 5:27 PM gearkat has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 304 (317275)
06-03-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by gearkat
06-03-2006 4:53 PM


welcome to EvC
We are glad you joined us and hope you enjoy your stay. Pull up a stump and set a spell. Keep your feet to the fire and the smoke never gets in your eyes.
At the end of this message is are links to some threads that may help make your stay here more enjoyable.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM gearkat has not replied

    Damouse
    Member (Idle past 4989 days)
    Posts: 215
    From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
    Joined: 12-18-2005


    Message 14 of 304 (317276)
    06-03-2006 4:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by gearkat
    06-03-2006 4:53 PM


    In Seriousity
    Key being a person of another race. Hence, dogs and other animals are not covered.
    As gay people are part of a race as well, they are covered. By this analysis the government can't pass a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriages.
    And on a serious note, you cant marry a child, its incest. Don't read it literally, its not how it's meant to be read. its meant to be read in juncture with the rest of the constitution and the conglomeration of laws.

    -I believe in God, I just call it Nature
    -One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
    -People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
    -Religion is the opiate of the masses

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM gearkat has not replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 15 of 304 (317279)
    06-03-2006 5:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by gearkat
    06-03-2006 4:53 PM


    [qs] "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." [/qxs]
    If they had known that idiots were going to come along in a few decades and claim that gays were meant to be included in something intended always and forever for heterosexual couples, they would have changed the wording, but such idiocies never occurred to anyone prior to very recent times.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by gearkat, posted 06-03-2006 4:53 PM gearkat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by ringo, posted 06-03-2006 5:18 PM Faith has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024