QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Sep 11 2013, 02:25 AM)
It was a court decision
not an amendment.
However they did reference the fourth amendment. The sentence is pretty clear. "Marriage is one of the most basic Civil Rights of Man".
They felt marriage is Mans most basic Civil Right and I must say I agree
Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness (Fourth Amendment) even allows for Bob to Marry Steve
Though I'd Rather Marry EVE, that's just me. Recently the supreme court overturned the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE act as Unconstitutional which I have to agree, it was
I don't seek to change anyones mind, here. Just have a good conversation about the issues of the day and we've done just that!
I do appreciate the conversation
The sands of politics are always shifting. As are the bounds of what is and isn't acceptable. I have been heartened by the overturning of the defense of marriage act, and by the number of states decriminalizing certain substances. Even though I don't personally use "drugs" nor do I drink (pretty boring I know). I feel it's everyone fourth amendment right to determine if such consumption is right for them. The momentum of legislation is heading in a direction I honestly approve of, but as I just said it's always in flux. It could head the other way in a jiffy
However, I"ll leave it to others to have the last word after this post.
Thanks again for a very engaging thread
Todd
Back to GUITAR!!!!!
yes, but the case itself was not to establish marriage as a civil right( him calling that in his remarks did make marriage a civil right) rather to stop the jailing of interracial couples based on equal protection
we have to nit pick here its the law(and the laws can be easily changed) of the land and these cases have precedences and reasons specific to them , so using a decision in regards to race that was not meant to be about sexual choice, now this case will be used for precedence to make that decision, but that still has to go to the court .just to be the devils advocate in his decision he used "existence". One could argue that homosexuals can't exist for more that one generation and that the judge used the word , ( if you want to use his opinion)as law and not the law itself. the rest is from wkipedia
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ 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 discrimination. 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. ”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ 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. ”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
Last thought , should marriage be between two people or more, just want to know what your idea is ?
You are at GuitarMasterClass.net
Don't miss today's
free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with
free content!
This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Sep 11 2013, 01:16 PM
