Originally Posted By ecdc >>?But we've already established that I'm not a lawyer.<< Man you'll argue about anything. The problem with all of your arguments, Douglas, is you lose sight of the forest through the trees. You'll hop from one, usually unimportant, bit of minutia to the next, literally going for dozens of posts on one tiny part of the overall picture. So you argue repeatedly over things that are small parts of the argument, then when you don't back down, you act as if your perspective on the much larger issue is right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Marriage before Loving was ALSO defined as being between two people of the same race, was it not?>> <No, it wasn't. There was a separate statute that dealt with marriages between races.> Hello? Anyone home? That statute dealt with MARRIAGE and defined one valid criteria of it. <<If another of those components had changed; say, the decision was made that already-married people could marry, would that not have changed the definition of marriage, even if the other things remained the same?>> <Yes.> And so there we are. One of the components of the law WAS changed by Loving. It doesn't matter whether you consider it more or less important than any of the others. One of the components was changed; therefore the definition of marriage in Virginia as a whole was changed. <<So just because only one component changed doesn't mean the definition as a whole didn't change. It did.>> <I disagree. Before Loving, black people could get married, and white people could get married. After Loving, black people could get married and white people could get married. The Loving decision had a lot more to do with relationships between the races than it did about marriage.> As 2oony pointed out, today men can get married and women can get married, but not to each other. Similar to whites and blacks in Virginia prior to Loving. So your logic holds no water. And as several people have pointed out now, one can legitimately hold opinions on various topics. But not on what various laws say. They say what they say. There can be disputes even there, but the ultimate arbiter that says what the law says is the Supreme Court -the very court that decided Loving and made it clear they were talking about marriage. And as SPP points out, "In law school after law school, it is taught that the definition of marriage was changed in states that had miscegenation statutes struck down by Loving. It's a basic of every Con Law class ever taught." So you can argue that Loving doesn't mean what SCOTUS itself said it did, or what every law school class teaches it does - but you just look silly.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If that were the case, I would provide evidence that what you said was incorrect, rather than just claiming "all" lawyers knew understood it one way." But that's obviously not what I've done here. I've provided you with the exact language from the Supreme Court case that struck down the Virginia statutes that banned interracial marriage. That obviously changed how marriage was defined in Virginia, yet incredibly you deny it without providing any evidence yourself to the contrary, primarily because you can't. It's simply what law is now in that state, and it isn't open to interpretation, yet you somehow want to claim that it is.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Man you'll argue about anything.> No, I won't. <You'll hop from one, usually unimportant, bit of minutia to the next, literally going for dozens of posts on one tiny part of the overall picture.> I respond to other posters.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Plainly put, marriages statues in Virginia pre-Loving banned interracial marriages. Post-Loving, they are now permitted. That's a change in the way marriage was addressed in that state. No two ways about it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Hello? Anyone home?> Yes, and still objecting to your attempts to confuse the issue by mistating the facts. <One of the components was changed; therefore the definition of marriage in Virginia as a whole was changed.> I disagree, for the reasons previously given. <But not on what various laws say. They say what they say.> Yes. The danger comes when someone says the say things they don't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Plainly put, marriages statues in Virginia pre-Loving banned interracial marriages. Post-Loving, they are now permitted. That's a change in the way marriage was addressed in that state. No two ways about it.> You'd think, wouldn't you??
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That obviously changed how marriage was defined in Virginia, yet incredibly you deny it without providing any evidence yourself to the contrary, primarily because you can't.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Hello? Anyone home?>> <Yes, and still objecting to your attempts to confuse the issue by mistating the facts.> It is only you who has done so. <<One of the components was changed; therefore the definition of marriage in Virginia as a whole was changed.>> <I disagree, for the reasons previously given.> Your "reason" was that previously, blacks and whites could both marry; just not each other. That is not a valid reason for disagreeing that the definition changed. Because after Loving they COULD marry each other. So yes, it changed. <<But not on what various laws say. They say what they say.>> <Yes. The danger comes when someone says the say things they don't. > No one here but you has done so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (SPP)<<That obviously changed how marriage was defined in Virginia, yet incredibly you deny it without providing any evidence yourself to the contrary, primarily because you can't.>> <I disagree.> You're making yourself a laughingstock.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You'd think, wouldn't you??" Yeah, but we're making things up and seeing things that aren't there. I think possibly the bigger fool than Doug is us arguing with him about this. He's plainly wrong on this, and here we waste time with the yutz.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Plainly put, marriages statues in Virginia pre-Loving banned interracial marriages. Post-Loving, they are now permitted. That's a change in the way marriage was addressed in that state.> Loving was more than that. Prior to Loving, an interracial couple couldn't even live together, let alone be married. Attempting to do so meant punishment, not just a failure to sanction. There's simply no comparison between what happened in Loving and what happened in Massachusetts.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm beginning to think he's self-employed because his last performance review said he doesn't play well with others. Obstinancy and obfuscation are not attractive qualities.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is only you who has done so.> No, it's not. <Your "reason" was that previously, blacks and whites could both marry; just not each other.> No, it wasn't. <No one here but you has done so.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Loving was more than that. Prior to Loving, an interracial couple couldn't even live together, let alone be married. Attempting to do so meant punishment, not just a failure to sanction. There's simply no comparison between what happened in Loving and what happened in Massachusetts." You did notice the "plainly put" part, correct? In other words, a simplified explanation of Loving? And where the hell did I mention Massachusetts?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're making yourself a laughingstock.> Amongst people who can't understand simple statements, distort the facts to suit there agenda, and repeat their opinions in some misguided belief that eventually they'll be proved right? Oh well.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm going to go put up more Christmas decorations. Doug is hopeless.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think possibly the bigger fool than Doug is us arguing with him about this. He's plainly wrong on this, and here we waste time with the yutz.> I agree you're wasting time, but the rest is typical of your posting style. If you don't have any facts, insult.
