Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Where's the part about cohabitation?> According to opinion written by Chief Justice Warren, the Lovings were convicted of violating § 20-58 of the Virginia Code: "Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage." <What kind of an advantage does it give that gay marriage would not?> I've answered this question many times in the past, so I'm sure you've heard the answer. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce children, and provide those children with a stable environment in which to grow up so they become productive members of society. Society needs children to continue its existence. <What is the compelling interest to prohibit same-sex marriages?> Granting same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples causes people to think of marriage as a primarily a legal arrangement, rather than an essential step in creating a family. Marriage becomes devalued, resulting in more children being born out of wedlock, and more children being on government assistance. At least, that's what appears to be happening in places that have allowed same-sex marriage, like Scandanavia. Plus, of course, allowing gay marriage also opens the door to other forms of alternate unions which are not in society's interest.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Hang on - are you actually arguing that the Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage didn't have anything to do with the legal protections accorded to married couples? That it was only about who could live with who?> Not only. But primarily.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>According to opinion written by Chief Justice Warren, the Lovings were convicted of violating § 20-58 of the Virginia Code<< First off, section 20-58 (as you'll see below) uses the term "cohabitation" to refer to a couple that has gone out of state to get married. Since the state did not recognize marriage, they used the term "cohabitation" in that part of the law. Second, they were convicted under that code because they left the state to get married, AND they were convicted under the code that declared interracial marriage illegal. It was NOT just about cohabitation. The two statutes under which appellants were convicted and sentenced are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme aimed at prohibiting and punishing interracial marriages. The Lovings were convicted of violating § 20-58 of the Virginia Code: "Leaving State to evade law. -- If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage." Section 20-59, which defines the penalty for miscegenation, provides: "Punishment for marriage. -- If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years." <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult y/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Heterosexual marriages tend to produce children, and provide those children with a stable environment in which to grow up so they become productive members of society. Society needs children to continue its existence.<< People are going to have kids regardless of whether they are married or not, so why recognize it for some people but not for others? Marriage as seen by the state is merely a legal union. >>Granting same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples causes people to think of marriage as a primarily a legal arrangement, rather than an essential step in creating a family.<< Feh. The gay couples I know that are in committed life long relationships are there because they want to raise families.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <First off, section 20-58 (as you'll see below) uses the term "cohabitation" to refer to a couple that has gone out of state to get married. Since the state did not recognize marriage, they used the term "cohabitation" in that part of the law.> The law forbid cohabitation between blacks and whites. Any interracial couple that was cohabitating was assumed to be married and given two choices - move out of Virginia or go to jail. <People are going to have kids regardless of whether they are married or not, so why recognize it for some people but not for others?> Some people are going to have kids regardless of whether they are married or not, and some are not. I'd like to encourage the latter, and not the former. <Marriage as seen by the state is merely a legal union.> No, it's not. This is clear from immigration laws, that can disallow a marriage if it appears to be done for legal reasons only. <The gay couples I know that are in committed life long relationships are there because they want to raise families.> So they don't need to be encouraged to get married. It's not like they're going to accidentally conceive kids.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Some people are going to have kids regardless of whether they are married or not, and some are not. I'd like to encourage the latter, and not the former.<< So we should encourage marriage for same-sex couples who want to raise a family.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So we should encourage marriage for same-sex couples who want to raise a family.> As I've already said, there's no need. Homosexual couples do not produce children.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Tell that to my lesbian friend who is pregnant with her second child. She used the same method to get pregnant as a straight friend of mine did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Homosexuality is a sexual preference.> Actually, it's a sexual orientation. That's a different thing. If you see it as merely a preference, it may color how you see the issue as a whole.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Tom, I went through Loving with Douglas months ago. He didn't listen then - to, you know, the actual language of the decision - and he's closing his ears again. "This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. " <And, then, finally their conclusion once again pointed out that the decision was about marriage, and not about cohabitation. "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. ">
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I went through Loving with Douglas months ago.<< Try Tough Loving next time. ; )
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think it boils down to some of us seeing people as people, and others seeing them as who they have sex with.> Well said as usual, Tom.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>I went through Loving with Douglas months ago.<< <Try Tough Loving next time. ; )> OMG, I just realized how that line sounded. MUST WASH BRAIN! MUST WASH BRAIN!
Originally Posted By scottie I wonder how many people didn't like the idea of interracial marriage because they didn't want to think about their son or daughter having sex with a black person. Maybe it has more to do with sex than we would like to admit even if I don't think it should.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Tom, I went through Loving with Douglas months ago.<< That must have been difficult. Oh, upper-case L. My bad.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Tell that to my lesbian friend who is pregnant with her second child. She used the same method to get pregnant as a straight friend of mine did.> Obviously, neither of them conceived the child with another woman.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Tom, I went through Loving with Douglas months ago. He didn't listen then - to, you know, the actual language of the decision - and he's closing his ears again.> You were as wrong then as Tom is now.
