- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Unless I am mistaken, the couple can still get married. They just need to get married by another justice. I don't see any problem with that.
How does anyone benefit from forcing the justice to marry anyone he doesn't want to?
Being in a mixed race relationship myself, if I were going to get married, and found out that a Justice was racist, I wouldn't want to get married by him.
Equal protection under the law refers to the issuing of the license, an important constitutional protection and one of the foundations for the opinion issued in Loving.
Shw this to be true.The fact that the judge used the "think about the children" excuse as a means of denying them a license is, without a doubt, based on racist sentiment.
Based on what?IMHO, he would have denied it even if they provided medical proof that they could not conceive.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?
I didn't. I bet you didn't, either. But then, I'm not a mulatto.Who doesn't??
So is the Justice citing some genetic disorder inherit in mixed children? Is the Did the Justice find in these specific couples some radical dynamic, like the black was a die-hard voodooist while the white was a roman catholic
Did the Justice offer any? Perhaps on a blog or a face-book?
My comments are contained to race because the OP and the OP's article are contained to race. It therefore follows that the thread is contained to race.
I haven't seen his record to confirm or deny this. Can you link to it please?
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?
I didn't. I bet you didn't, either. But then, I'm not a mulatto.
I used the term "particular" to seperate the hardships in question from those that everyone face.
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?
The topic is race, not gender, as this will also apply once gay-marriage is legal.
Please stay on topic.
Thank you for substantiating the argument at hand.I'm Chinese American, and yes I've had particular hardships in my upbringing, which was particular to my ethnicity.
I'm not a mulatto, and so I've not had any hardship particular to that particular status.EDIT: and I forgot, I call Bull**** on you claiming you never had any particular hardship. You had a perfect life, have you?
You may pick up the fallen baton of "welfare of the children as a compelling state interest' argument if you like.Yeah, so let's not allow mixed races to breed because it may upset the bigots. While we are at it, let's cater to their every whim and not allow people of mixed races to even get in relationships in the first place. :roll:
Thank you for substantiating the argument at hand.
Thank you for substantiating the argument at hand.
I'm not a mulatto, and so I've not had any hardship particular to that particular status.
Oh, the Irony:I'm a little bit surprised goobieman isn't arguing against a marriage licsense all together in the first place considering his stance on the second.
Originally posted by winston53660
Loving vs Virginia already addressed your concern. So when are you going to turn this into a gun rights thread?
So based on your continued support of this absurd stance, it stands to reason that what you are basically saying here is that he would have been better off if he wouldn't have been born in the first place? Guess what? Life sucks. It's full of hardships. We all deal with different ones for different reasons. This whole "welfare of the child" bull**** argument in this particular case is ridiculous.
No. YOU did. YOU agreed that mulatto children DO face particular harships because of their status.So what's the big deal? You havn't substantiated anything.
Which is irrelevant to MY point.That wasn't my point. ANYBODY who is in ANY particular cultural/ethnic group (including the majority Caucasians) will suffer their own particular hardships within their respective culture/elasticities.
No. YOU did. YOU agreed that mulatto children DO face particular harships because of their status.
Which is irrelevant to MY point.
You may pick up the fallen baton of "welfare of the children as a compelling state interest' argument if you like.
Shw this to be true.
Do you deny that mulatto chidlren face particular harships when growing up in certain societies?
No. YOU did. YOU agreed that mulatto children DO face particular harships because of their status.
The welfare of the child as a compelling state interest.And I fail to see how can that be a reason to disqualify people from a marriage licensee.
This can only be said if you do not understand my point.No, it makes your point moot.
The welfare of the child as a compelling state interest.
This can only be said if you do not understand my point.
I am talking about the PARTICULAR hadships of the mulatto, not the COMMON harships faces by everyone. Discussing the COMMON harships means nothing.
On the contrary -- YOUR posts do not nothing to negate my argument, they only show other possible apllications. Given that we're not talking about those applications, all you're doing is throwing red herrings.Would you care to actually respond to my post or are you going to continue making comments that have nothing to do with my posts?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?