You are perfectly free to try to make this an argument about the 10th amendment, but in so doing, you need to argue for why states are justified in enforcing interracial marriage bans. The entire idea that states have unlimited power in regulating marriage was dismissed in Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court found that a state cannot pass marriage regulations that infringe on the constitutional rights of its residents without advancing a legitimate state interest. That ruling has been in effect since 1967 and so the Federalism angle you are pushing is kind of a dead end here.
Scary.
So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore? Judicial tyrants decide that for us now, do they?
Scary.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
...
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
1.)There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.
2.)Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....
3.)That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.
4.)Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."
5.)Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.
6.)To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....
7.)I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.
Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....
That's what most people ignorant to history don't know - slavery was about property rights not race. Slaves could have been of any race.
Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."
Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960 or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.
To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....
I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
There are no interracial bans and Jim Crow wasn't a person.
Interracial bans had to do with property rights.....
That's what most people ignorant to history don't know -
slavery was about property rights not race.
Slaves could have been of any race.
Obviously it's stupid to think of human beings that way in this day in age but we had a civil war over "property rights."
Interracial marriage to folks in the south pre-1960
or so (especially the salty ones) was like a person marring a car or a horse or a piece of property.
To put it into some sort of context - those folks from the south were still pissed off that you freed all their mules they paid money for and that their families were out of tens - if not hundreds of thousands of dollars - which would piss anyone off.....
I wouldn't expect you to understand a different perspective even if you disagreed with it - nor would I most individuals.
Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Slavery was abolished in 1865, over 100 years before Loving v. Virginia. Interracial marriage bans were put in place to prevent Miscegenation, which is the mixing of racial groups through sexual relations and procreation. They were passed not only against blacks, but also Asians and Native Americans, in order to keep members of those racial groups from mixing with whites. Your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.
However let's put this into perspective.
Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????
Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.
So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?
Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.
Believe whatever the **** you like... IMO, I don't care.
However let's put this into perspective.
Say you own a car lot and Obama comes in and seizes all of your cars claiming they're "not environmentally friendly" how the **** would you feel????
Well that is how the slave owners felt - and before you even judge them go back in history and look at who owned slaves in that era..... Just about every ****ing culture.
So who the **** are any of you to make any judgments now?
Maybe I walk up to your house and steal your car and say "well your car is bad for the environment because Obama and Pelosi says so."
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.
Well, considering the government must compensate me for anything they take away from me, they can have my trashy car and ill go buy another.
As to your point, you must realize that there were tens of thousands (if not more) slaves who were having their rights trampled on - in a country founded because the rights of the founders were being trampled on! I mean... really?
And unless those cars have actual people under the hood instead of the Hemi I am hoping for, it is not the same, and you bloody well know it... Or you should. Unless you are advocating for a return to the slave days? If so, may I suggest that you be the first one to be shackled?
He didn't need to, he just did it because it was funny.
Please learn syntax.
And stop getting your history insight from this dude.
You need to stop posting memes to people you don't agree with as a counter-argument or digression.
Intelligent people don't need to post cartoons show emotion - especially when history has nothing to do with emotion.
You have to realize people paid money for those slaves (regardless acceptable or not)... The government sole money from those people....
A lot of people only see the "slave" aspect and not the "pissed off owners who lost a **** ton of money aspect."
Was slavery wrong? yes, but can you blame a guy who lost upwards of a million or two in currant monetary value pissed not justified being pissed? especially when slavery was usual? EVERYWHERE.
Wow, just how badly can one misapprehend our Constitution?The constitution overrules the will of the people. It is set this way so that the majority cannot impose their tyranny on the minority. Or, shall I say, your tyranny on the minority.
Something interesting happened while you weren't looking:
You stopped being the majority.
But you're right. You will still have the ability to sit in the privacy of your own home and proclaim just how much you despise same-sex marriage. Nobody will take that from you.
edit: majority/minority, lol.
I speak of the Constitution in explicit terms, you just wave your hand at it and say you know it. The minimal you have expressed thus far shows a basic ignorance of the document and its history.You obviously have never read the Constitution nor have any idea what it stands for. You might want to take a look at it some time.
Thanks for Fed #10, have read it many times now. The same sentiment goes for preventing a tyranny of the minority... tyranny in any form, I am supposing you would agree, is not what is a desired outcome.The Federalist #10
In other words, the very nature of our government and how it is structured is best suited to a large Republic, and in that large Republic the institutions of government will act as a check protecting the rights of the few against the demands of the many. So even if "we, the people" opposed same-sex marriage (which we dont), the institutions of government would protect the rights of the few against the needs of the many.
The 14th protects each equally... as stated in another post, the 14th does not allow for an expansion of rights, it only equally protects all under current law. The logic is precise, undeniable. I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.The state has the right to regulate domestic relations as they wish, but that power is not unlimited. Laws defining and regulating marriage must respect the constitutional rights of persons within the state. In this case the marriage ban is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment as it deprives same sex couples of the family stabilizing benefits of marriage and advances no legitimate state interest.
I speak of the Constitution in explicit terms, you just wave your hand at it and say you know it. The minimal you have expressed thus far shows a basic ignorance of the document and its history.
Game over, please place your quarter in the slot and try again [ if you simply must do so, please also do some reading on our history, how governments and our Constitution work, first...thanks ].
Asserting something so obvious that elementary students are generally aware, then an underlying implication that SSM is one of those rights...then telling me to take a Con Law class...hilarious.LOL...if you truly had any understanding of the Constitution and our history you would understand that the foundation of the Constitution is to ensure that there are certain rights that are so intrinsic that they are not subject to the whim of the majority. Take a course in Con Law and then get back to me. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you because you obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I cannot marry a man and no other man can, no other woman can marry another woman, all is equal, no preference is given to any individual. The rules all apply to everyone equally.
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?