As soon as someone has standing to challenge the law, the Supreme Court would rule in the plaintiff’s favor. No state is led by a group of legislators dumb enough to pass a law against interracial marriage. And that is saying a lot.
Yours is a moot argument. A mere technical exercise in semantics
Apparently, there were.
Your aren’t wrong. Both sides are guilty of this and it’s worse the further from the middle (if that even exists anymore) one gets
And that is the operative word.
So was Loving vs Virginia the right decision at the time? That’s the question.
I am far from a Constitutional law expert, even remotely. But the Loving vs Virginia makes sense to me.
But Thomas has put it into question.
So… one out of 9 justices makes a controversial comment and all heads turn?
BTW, what are the details of his argument?
If you are as good as debater as you believe, defend Thomas’ comment on Loving vs Virginia. I’d like to learn what Thomas believes and sees as the weakness of the decision.
He avoided commenting on it. He said that the court should revisit rulings, including gay marriage, but didn’t mention interracial marriage in spite of the fact Loving vs Virginia was used as precedent for the gay marriage ruling. If the court was wrong with regard to gay marriage, then it was wrong with regard to interracial marriage.
What does this even mean? If a senator makes some odious remark do we say it’s only one out of one hundred?
Where did this logic originate? I disagree with the necessary premises.
My guess is race is equated to the sex of a person. IMO, there is a large percentage of people who fail to make that comparison. Though I will concede that we are headed to race and a person’s sex must be equated in all legal matters.
The case for same sex marriage was based on the case for interracial marriage. It’s called legal precedent. If you read the opinion of the SCOTUS with regard to interracial marriage, one of the things mentioned was that the freedom to get married is a personal right and a civil right. Loving vs Virginia was cited numerous times in Obergefell vs Hodges.
Tell me again about my logic.
Serious questions: 1) Are you speaking as it picking a side is bad? 2) What’s good about being a “centrist”, in the middle?
Centrist: liberal lite.
Since you are reading comprehensive challenged, I should have clearly stated that I was NOT asking about YOUR logic. I plainly asked, “Where did this logic originate?” But I tried and failed miserably.
Picking a side is not a bad thing, but since not everyone in this (supposedly) free country believes the same thing, you can have a belief but should not be allowed to impose that will/belief on those who do not share that same belief. Since consensus has not been reached on what constitutes the point at which a group of cells becomes a human, there is a dichotomy of belief systems. If your belief system does not allow you to condone abortion it does not mean you can impose that on those who do not believe that way.
Actually plenty of people are imposing their wills on me as I sit here writing this. And there are likely few places on earth in which wills aren’t being imposed on others.
What about an eventual separation/divorce for people with fundamentally different ways, as I’ve mentioned in the Civil War and Balkanization thread?
I am not actually opposed to this. The USA is still a young experiment as far as a nation goes. My bet is that it goes horribly wrong sooner rather than later (almost did after only 90 years).
Having lived in a few places in the US, the cultures are different enough to separate into unique cultures.
But not successful ones.
I’d sympathize if I could relate.
Lack of mental capacity?
What if your belief system allows for marrying 12 year old?
The line is individual life, liberty, property.