Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
The US Supreme Court acted unlawfully by striking down anti-interracial marriage laws!?
1. The Voters of the state of Virginia decided that they collectively did not want any miscegenation allowed within their state (interracial marriage), so they enacted such sentiments into state law (The Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924).
2. The voters enacted these laws based on religious tenets (evident in Judge Leon Bazile's comments upon Mildred Jetter and Richard Loving pleading guilty to miscegenation in 1959:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. THE FACT THAT HE SEPARATED THE RACES SHOWS THAT HE INTENDED THEM NOT TO INTERMINGLE."
3. The Lovings then appealed to the US Supreme Court in Loving V. the State of Virginia in 1967, which case the Loving's won. The result was that the US Supreme Court ruled ALL anti-miscegenation laws (including those of the other 15 states that had them) were unconstitutional by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
4. Many White-Americans (especially in the South) were INFURIATED at the court ruling, claiming that “the Supreme Court has usurped power from the people to decide what is legal and what is not”, and “The Supreme Court should have no ability to pass legislation contrary to the will of the people” (even though the Supreme Court passed no legislation, rather repealed an unconstitutional piece of legislation enacted by the voters).
Now 40 years after this historic precedent, there is hardly a single American who would argue that miscegenation laws were appropriate let alone constitutional (nor would there be many Americans who would argue that the “judiciary is legislating from the bench!” or that “the courts are functioning as a monarch!”).
My question:
How are the conditions here with the controversy over interracial marriage any different from those we are experience today with gay marriage?
In both cases:
1. Discriminatory laws were proposed and passed by the electorate.
2. The arguments for proliferation of such laws were inherently religious.
3. The Supreme Courts ultimately decided that such laws were unconstitutional (to their respective jurisdictions).
4. The opposition immediately screamed that THEIR rights were being trampled upon by those respective courts MERELY DOING THEIR JOB (hearing appeals to laws and judging the constitutionality of such accordingly).
Thank you so much everyone who is demonstrating point #4 with their answers...
20 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
You're absolutely right.
@ Fish: I see the point flew right over your head.
- Anonymous5 years ago
There is no difference. Both groups are/were being discriminated against completely unreasonably. It is unconstitutional (and simply unfair) to deny certain groups the rights granted to other equivalent groups. Likewise, to add such denial to the language of a constitution would (in my unschooled opinion) fly directly in the face of such a document that is designed to grant equal rights to all. The California Supreme Court acted completely within its bounds by striking down an unconstitutional ban, both in 1948 and in 2008.
- t_rex_is_madLv 61 decade ago
The idea that the people can have any discriminatory law they like passed and the courts should do nothing about them is patently absurd.
People really need to remember that the US is a free country. All laws passed must meet the requirements of the Constitution. If they are discriminatory, they will and should be struck down no matter which religion thinks their god will be angry..
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
It's scary in this country as mislead as they can be at times that the voice and the vote of the people is ignored. In this case it was wrong but that is what this country was founded upon. Sorry that the masses of humanity sometimes follows leaders like lemmings headed to the cliffs to fall willingly into the sea to drown.
It goes to show you that we must choose our leaders more carefully as times change.
As for that supreme court knowing what is good for you over the mass of the people, it worked this time. However do you really believe that it's working in the homeland security Division. What gives a few people the right to decide what is good regarding your freedoms that was once guarenteed by the constitution. And who decides who should be wise enough to decide that right.
We are surely leaving the democracy of the Founding fathers and heading to who knows what. Right now it doesn't look all that good!!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CeisiwrLv 71 decade ago
As a Welsh atheist white man, I'm amazed that the state of Viginia enacted such a law, and even more amazed about what you say about people, white or not, still wanting such a law. And I wonder if this is a true story. I'm not so amazed that fundamentalist Christians think that way, but aren't they a minority?
The US Supreme Court was absolutely right to over-rule the state.
- 1 decade ago
i dont think it is right for the courts to tell you who can and cannot be with. nobody has the right to judge anyone. most people judge others before they even look at themselves. i feel most people judge themselves enough without having to worry about what others think about them. the courts should stick to the ten commandments. Gods laws are the only laws that should be judged by the courts. but it doesnt matter because the only judge that can judge me is God.
Source(s): bible - Anonymous1 decade ago
If the opponents of same-sex marriage feel that it threatens the "institution" of heterosexual marriage, then my advise is that they make laws against divorce! Divorce threatens heterosexual marriage. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. Jesus, himself, never said one word about homosexuality. He did make it very clear that divorce was prohibited. Divorce threatens the "institution of marriage" but the "breeders" are not out to make laws to prevent the very thing that undermines their precious institution! And, every politician who is on the band-wagon for the "defense of marriage" has almost always been divorced and remarried at least once. Most of them have been at it at least two or three times. This is nothing more than serial polygamy. So which of their many marriages are they defending when the "divorcees" are carping about defending traditional marriage? LOL! Let's outlaw divorce in defense of marriage! See how many "hets" go for that one in "defense" of marriage.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
And King Solomon of the Bible didn't have 700 wives and 300 concubines of different races? O.o
- PaprikaLv 41 decade ago
Your question was way too long for my flea-like attention span. If gay folk want to get hitched, then let 'em. Don't bother me none.....
- 1 decade ago
there is no legal justification for not allowing people of different races to marry. it unfairly inhibits their lives and their pursuit of happiness. it is the supreme court's job to fix such dumb ****.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You're in the wrong forum. Unless, of course, You claim to be religiously bigoted. You didn't say "amen."
