Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 8 years ago

Is "Loving v Virginia" the reason WHY gay marriage is NOT a state issue?

A better name could not have been scripted for the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down 16 states' statutes against interracial marriage.

Loving v. Virginia.

"Richard Perry Loving, a white man, and Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of black and Native-American descent, married in Washington, D.C., on June 2, 1958. After returning to their home in Caroline County, Va., they were arrested, jailed and convicted for violating Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, which prohibited interracial marriage between whites and non-whites."

http://pressrepublican.com/0100_news/x1391760131/A...

So, a gay couple married today in Mass could technically be arrested in North Carolina, where they just passed a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Paula
    Lv 6
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    No, it is NOT "the reason WHY gay marriage is NOT a state issue."

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Arresting homosexuals for "marrying" could be marvelous! The Bible says they're to be placed to dying. Romans a million:26. subsequently God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the organic function for that that's unnatural, 27. and in the comparable way additionally the adult men abandoned the organic function of the female and burned of their want in direction of one yet another, adult men with adult men committing indecent acts and receiving of their very own persons the due penalty of their blunders. 28. And purely as they did no longer see in nice condition to renowned God any greater, God gave them over to a wicked strategies, to do those issues that are no longer perfect, 29. being full of all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; packed with envy, homicide, strife, deceit, malice; they're gossips, 30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, conceited, smug, inventors of evil, disobedient to human beings, 31. without information, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32. and, in spite of the fact that they understand the ordinance of God, that people who prepare such issues are worth of dying, they no longer basically do the comparable, yet in addition provide hearty approval to those that prepare them.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Living v Virgina had nothing to do with gay marriage. It delt with mixed race marriage. I imagine when the Supreme Court hears a case about same-sex couples the ruling will rightfully come down affirming the right for them to marry.

    Currently gay marriage still is decided state by state so technically your question was wrong.

    I think the enevitability of the Justices approving gay marriage is why Romney and others want a constitutional amendment on the issue. With 36 state on the record banning same-sex marriage I think an Amendment would pass easily.

    Don't yo think it rather queer that all the conversations are about homosexual marriage rather than bigger problems facing the country?

    Do you realize this is just the latest version of Obama's viewpoint. I'm sure if it becomes clear to Obama his view would cost him re-election his view would be clarified tomorrow. He'd say "It's just my opinion but I have no plans to take any action during my term in office"

    Obama Gay Marriage Flip-Flop

    Did you know Obama was in favor of gay marriage before he was against it?

    Obama Gay Marriage Flip-Flop

    In February 1996, running for state office in Illinois, Obama signed a letter to a homosexual newspaper in Chicago, that included the statement, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." so his statement today puts him back where he was on the record as recently as 1996- calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

    The paragraphs are not well defined enough because of crazy formatting but his 96 stand is presented in about the forth paragraph of the article below...

    http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2012/05/...

    Since then, and until today’s admission Obama has been, well, nuanced. In true John Kerry fashion:

    President Obama was for gay marriage [1996].

    Before he was undecided [1998].

    Before he was “not a supporter of gay marriage” [2004].

    Before he was reminded to “remain” open to the possibility that his “unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided” [2006].

    Before he decided that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman [April 2008].

    Before he was not in favor of gay marriage [November 2008].

    Before he was for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act [2009].

    Before he admitted to an evolving attitude toward same-sex marriage [2010].

    Before, at least for now, he was again for it.

    How can Obama expect to be taken seriously on any issue when you cannot count on anything he says? When Obama states his position, you can only count on the fact that his position will change, or evolve, depending upon the audience and/or the political expedience of the moment.

    Isn't it amazing having changed his stand this week on Same-Sex marriage Obama is already selling T-Shirts?  Do you think George Clooney order them just hoping Obama would move further left?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/pres...

    Clearly Obama will say and possibly do anything to get re-elected. 

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.