Maine's Question 1

[Marokai Backbeat]

http://www.bangordailynews.com/electionresults.html

Results can be found here, I believe. I'm watching two of the initiatives.

[Marokai Backbeat]

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW

No    1550    73.46%
Yes    560    26.54%

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes votes are now leading.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Please don't let me down, Maine.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm worried.

[Marokai Backbeat]

[Marokai Backbeat]

We have lost the battle, but the war is inevitably ours. Don't be discouraged, we must pick ourselves up and fight again.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh wow.

Gays will be PISSED.

I'm not angry. Just sad. Sad that apparently yet another state has voted to say I don't deserve equal rights that you take for granted.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

Me or Inks?

Inks.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just out of pure curiosity, you would defend the right of the state to define marriage as an institution excluding mixed race couples, yes?

No - Loving v. Virginia has shown why that's unconstitutional.  Now you're going to bring up that Loving v. VA should be used in gay marriage, and I would respond with Hernandez v. Robles, as well as the fact that the law being looked at in Loving was much different than laws prohibiting gay marriage.  In Loving, the ceremony of marriage as well was being outlawed, and the law assumed that if you were living together and were an inter-racial couple, you were married (if you had gone out of state for the ceremony).  You also have to look at Loving's statement that marriage is a civil right, sourced from Skinner v. Oklahoma, which links marriage with procreation.

Skinner v. Oklahoma is a case from the early 40's and deals with compulsory sterilization. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. You can point to Loving v. Virginia as to why you think such a thing would be unconstitutional but I could just as easily point to numerous court cases in the United States (not to mention the ones all over the world that come to similar conclusions) that say preventing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on similar if not identical grounds.

You can't just pick what you think is unconstitutional and what you don't think is unconstitutional when both are viewed unconstitutional in the eyes of many courts for the same reason. Your entire objection to the hypothetical action of preventing interracial marriage is incoherent since you would support the exact same type of action for another group.

If you believe the state has the right to alter the contract of marriage how it sees fit, then you believe the state has the right to alter it to prevent interracial marriages. Your inconsistent reasoning is just a thin veil for the fact that you don't support it for gay people. Simple as that.