Originally Posted By Dabob2 Give me a break. I never tried to say you said anything other than what you said. It's a typical tactic of yours to claim that, but it's just not true. All I did was make you eat your own words - that Loving didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia. You said that many times, and it's a ridiculous statement. Now you're trying to qualify it with "basic" - which is a). transparently weasly, and b). wouldn't even be correct if I let you get away with it, because Virginians certainly considered spouses being of the same race as something basic. I'm the one who has backed up my opinion, you have not - you've only repeated it, despite me showing why it failed the logic test, and inlandemporer among others showing why it failed the "real world" test. So I don't have "just opinion" to back me up, I have the many interracial couples who have now married in VA who couldn't before - and they were able to because the definition of a valid marriage changed in VA. It is you who have failed to back up anything. As usual.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer That's a little harsh, Dabob2, but it is correct. DouglasDubh, I can't believe you could actually claim that the definition of marriage didn't change in Virginia. If if hadn't, my aunt and uncle couldn't have gotten married. Plain and simple.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <All I did was make you eat your own words - that Loving didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia.> Nonsense. Loving didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia, and all your hystronics won't change that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course Loving changed the definition of marriage in Virginia. And all you can do is repeat that it didn't, with no backup. Good luck convincing anyone that way. As we can see, you haven't.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer How can you disagree? You haven't convinced me, or ecdc, or jonvn, or anyone else here. How could you? Your statement that "Loving didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia" just doesn't make sense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How can you disagree?> I've given my reasons. <You haven't convinced me, or ecdc, or jonvn, or anyone else here.> So? I never set out to convince you. I simply disagreed with Dabob's assertion that what happened in 1967 was similar to what happened recently in Massachusetts. It wasn't. <Your statement that "Loving didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia" just doesn't make sense.> To you. It makes perfect sense to me.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (inlandemporer) <<Your statement that "Loving didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia" just doesn't make sense.>> <To you. It makes perfect sense to me.> inlandemporer is right. If the definition of marriage HADN'T changed, his aunt and uncle wouldn't have been able to get married. They could have been denied a license. That's the bottom line, and the inconvenient truth you keep avoiding. So of course it changed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's no wonder. You haven't been able to do anything to refute it other than say "I disagree."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It is not opinion that the definition of marriage changed in Virginia. Prior to Loving, inlandemporer's aunt and uncle couldn't get married in Virginia. They were definied by the law as unmarry-able. After Loving, they were not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is not opinion that the definition of marriage changed in Virginia.> Sure it is. And no amount of repetition will make it a fact. If you think you can prove your point, then produce the statute that defined marriage that was changed due to Loving.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here are the first words from Loving: _______________________ MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. 1 For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment. ___________________ If that isn't plain enough Doug then you're being obstinate for the sheer thrill of it again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Because I can't find it on the web doesn't mean anything. No amount of repetition that the definition of marriage wasn't changed holds up to scrutiny or common sense. If Virginia defined an interracial couple as unmarryable before Loving, but not after, how in the world did their definition NOT change?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If that isn't plain enough Doug then you're being obstinate for the sheer thrill of it again. > Boy howdy.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If that isn't plain enough Doug then you're being obstinate for the sheer thrill of it again.> No, I'm not. I simply believe my understanding of the Loving decision, and my opinion of how it affected marriage in Virginia is correct. You can restate the contrary position as often as you like, but I'm not going to change my opinion unless I'm shown additional facts.
