Except there is a precedent for the separate but equal graft that the SCOTUS has decided on before.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:25 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Lek Wrote: Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

How do you figure? The majority of the population understood it to be demeaning to the institution to allow the mixing of races. Daniel's iron and clay analogy was a common utterance. Biblical support and all that.

How do you know the majority of the population thought that way? Anyway, look up the definition of marriage in a 30 year old Webster's dictionary.

Better still:

(June 27, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Lek Wrote: How do you know the majority of the population thought that way? Anyway, look up the definition of marriage in a 30 year old Webster's dictionary.

Oral interviews in the LOC archives, for one. I did a thesis for a college class on this very topic. It was a very common attitude. I should add that the attitude was more prevalent in the south, for obvious reasons. I should have been more specific, the majority of the populations in the states where the laws existed.

And we are talking about the state's definition of marriage, not the dictionary definition. The state's definition of marriage is what the courts and legislatures have power over, and what we're actually talking about. The red herring about what Webster's says is idiocy and you know it. What the law is---that's what matters. And the laws in those states defined marriage such that it was punishable by prison time to intermarry races.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:29 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Except there is a precedent for the separate but equal graft that the SCOTUS has decided on before.

I'm not talking "separate but equal". I'm talking about one civil union that applies to anyone who wishes to be recognized by the government and to receive the legal benefits of such.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:36 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Lek Wrote: How do you know the majority of the population thought that way?  Anyway, look up the definition of marriage in a 30 year old Webster's dictionary.

Oral interviews in the LOC archives, for one. I did a thesis for a college class on this very topic. It was a very common attitude. I should add that the attitude was more prevalent in the south, for obvious reasons. I should have been more specific, the majority of the populations in the states where the laws existed.

And we are talking about the state's definition of marriage, not the dictionary definition. The state's definition of marriage is what the courts and legislatures have power over, and what we're actually talking about. The red herring about what Webster's says is idiocy and you know it. What the law is---that's what matters. And the laws in those states defined marriage such that it was punishable by prison time to intermarry races.

I'll accept what you present as fact. In that case, they did redefine marriage and were wrong to do so.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:36 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 9:29 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Except there is a precedent for the separate but equal graft that the SCOTUS has decided on before.

I'm not talking "separate but equal". I'm talking about one civil union that applies to anyone who wishes to be recognized by the government and to receive the legal benefits of such.

We have that. It's called marriage. If it bothers Christians, you can call their marriage something else. 'Holy Matrimony,' as your cohort PiousPaladin suggested. It'll be even more exclusive. No Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, or even us evil atheists don't qualify.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Lek Wrote: In that case, they did redefine marriage and were wrong to do so.

No, it was defined this way from the outset. Read your Bible. And the SCOTUS redefined it to be inclusive of all races.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:52 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Lek Wrote: In that case, they did redefine marriage and were wrong to do so.

No, it was defined this way from the outset. Read your Bible. And the SCOTUS redefined it to be inclusive of all races.

I read my bible every day and I don't see where marriage was defined that way. Give me the verses in the bible that define marriage as only between a man and woman of the same race because I've never come across them.

Matrimony did not become a major thing with the fucking church until the late Middle Ages.  I guess that was when they figured they could make a few more bucks off the populace!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_%...rly_period

Quote:The medieval Christian church, taking the lead of Augustine, developed the sacramental understanding of matrimony. However, even at this stage the Catholic Church did not consider the sacraments equal in importance.[34][35][36] Marriage has never been considered either to be one of the sacraments of Christian initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist) or of those that confer a character (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders).[37]

With the development of sacramental theology, marriage was included in the select seven to which the term "sacrament" was applied. Explicit classification of marriage in this way came in reaction to the contrary teaching of Catharism that marriage and procreation are evil: the first official declaration that marriage is a sacrament was made at the 1184 Council of Verona as part of a condemnation of the Cathars.

With the church one should always abide by the maxim:  In any crime, follow the money!