Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If Virginia defined an interracial couple as unmarryable before Loving, but not after, how in the world did their definition NOT change?> I think I've already answered this question, but marriage was still defined afterwards, as it was before, as the union of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, not closely related, of proper age.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think I've already answered this question, but marriage was still defined afterwards, as it was before, as the union of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, not closely related, of proper age.> That's non-responsive, or at least evasive. Marriage before Loving was ALSO defined as being between two people of the same race, was it not? After Loving, it was not. 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? (i.e. they still had to be unrelated, of the same race, and old enough?) I think you'd agree that if polygamy had been allowed in Virginia in 1967, then their definition of marriage would have changed. No? So just because only one component changed doesn't mean the definition as a whole didn't change. It did.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The law the Lovings were convicted of violating... >>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.<< After the Loving decision, this was changed. So, the basic definition of legal marriage in Virginia was indeed changed. That's just a matter of fact. Good heavens, some things are debatable. This really is not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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. <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. <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.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>After Loving, black people could get married and white people could get married.<< To each other, legally, unlike before the decision. But, to use your viewpoint, I guess making gay marriage legal won't change the definition of marriage at all. Currently, men can get married and women can get married. After gay marriage is recognized, men can get married and women can get married.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <To each other, legally, unlike before the decision.> Yes. But Loving was about much more than whether the State of Virginia would recognize certain marriages. That's why it's a bad analogy for what happened in Massachusetts. <But, to use your viewpoint, I guess making gay marriage legal won't change the definition of marriage at all.> Sure it will, as I've pointed out.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF ^^^ Your saying so doesn't make it true, no matter how much you say so.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your saying so doesn't make it true, no matter how much you say so.> Of course.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Then don't be surprised when your own tactics are thrown back at you.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Good Lord. 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. Doug can twist, parse and obfuscate all he wants, but it is an undeniable fact the definition of marriage was changed. Period. If Doug were to stick with his line of thought on a Con Law test he'd get a big, fat zero for his answer. It defies explanation as to why he thinks he's right, unless he really is doing this just to be obnoxious.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Then don't be surprised when your own tactics are thrown back at you.> I'm not the one insisting that my opinion is the truth, and that there is no other way of looking at the matter.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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.> Well, that explains a lot about certain lawyers. My professors taught me to think for myself, not accept what they said as gospel.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Well, it's not gospel -- it's the LAW!!! Do you think we live in a theocracy? LOL
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, that explains a lot about certain lawyers. My professors taught me to think for myself, not accept what they said as gospel." Uh-huh. Good luck passing a bar exam.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Doug now officially defies explanation. It's one thing to defend an indefensible war, and uses hilarious phrases like "we're not succeeding fast enough", but this latest bit may be the all-time champion. What do you do a for a living, Doug?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My professors taught me to think for myself, not accept what they said as gospel.<< Yeah, I tried that in grade school. They kept insisting 5 + 5 = 10, but I told them they were narrow minded and only looking at the ting in one way.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well, that explains a lot about certain lawyers. My professors taught me to think for myself, not accept what they said as gospel." And that would have to be ALL lawyers Doug, since we all know about Loving.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I also tried spelling 'thing' as 'ting'. I still have hope my version will catch on.
