Should interracial marriage have been subject to a vote of the people instead...

H

Healthy Environment

New member
...of the courts? Those courts that declared a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional..............

Those are "activist judges" by your standards.

Should interracial marriage have been subjected to a vote by the people?

(just answer the question, no need for off-topic rants.)
 
People of different races were already pretty well mixed in the United States even when interracial marriage was prohibited in several states. This was in part due to white masters impregnating black slave women; in part due to early European immigrant men impregnating (and sometimes marrying) Indian women; in part due to runaway slaves (both male and female) being taken in by Indian tribes; in part due to mixing in the Mexican border states; in part due to Chinese and Japanese immigration; in part due to American soldiers (both black and white) bringing home wives from Japan and the Philippines after WW2; and in part due to an inconsistent definition of what race meant. So, even if you think races should not mix, you would still have a problem with categorizing who should be eligible to marry with whom.

How would it have been possible to structure something to vote on, in any rational way?
 
Well, the u.s. constitution doesn't make any references to marriage. Even though for race preservation pusposes I think it's in everyone's best interest to procreate within their race, and I say this because each race is special and unique; deserving of preservation. It would be a boring world if we all were the same color. But, I still think free men and women have a right to marry whomever they please, while upholding the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
 
We regulate hiring practices by color, so why not marriage?

I don't know. Michelle is ALL black, but not Obama. I doubt it gets dealt with until he is out of office.
 
Back
Top