Quantcast

It wasn't until 1967 that interracial marriage was deemed constitutional.

wildcat 2012/05/18 00:41:09
yes, I knew that
Wildcat, what is your point?
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The same religious nut jobs that oppose Gay marriage opposed interracial marriage too.
U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:
No laws passed
Repealed before 1887
Repealed from 1948 to 1967
Overturned on 12 June 1967


slope
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Scott 2012/05/18 02:55:41
    yes, I knew that
    Scott
    +5
    The RWNJs ALWAYS end up on the wrong side of history (when it comes to social mores). That's why democrats are known as progressives. I don't care if it's interracial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, or gay rights, RWNJs will always be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the mainstream. I guess it's inevitable if you're the party of hate. Regressives are always going to be overtaken.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • mjkowal 2012/05/24 15:29:08
    yes, I knew that
    mjkowal
    +1
    And 40 years later the same arguments are being used against gay marriage! Kinda sad don't you think? 40 years ago
  • wildcat mjkowal 2012/05/25 00:29:15
    wildcat
    Imagine the sick-0's that still think inter-racial marriage is disgusting. Hard to believe there are dumbass people like the guy below. Imagine the idiot test he's failed.
  • rustyshackelford 2012/05/23 03:37:47
  • wildcat rustysh... 2012/05/23 22:22:20
    wildcat
    you are one sick-0
  • rustysh... wildcat 2012/05/24 04:05:16
  • Josh rustysh... 2012/09/08 11:54:34
    Josh
    Right, let's ban interracial relationships just because YOU think it's nasty.

    I think corn dogs are nasty. Let's ban those as well.
  • rustysh... Josh 2012/09/08 16:23:14 (edited)
  • Josh rustysh... 2012/09/08 20:40:43
  • Flamingolady 2012/05/23 02:36:53
    Wildcat, what is your point?
    Flamingolady
    If you weren't alive at this time, you can not know anything about this post, or any of the bigoted views that were mainstream then. I, for one, do not EVER want to revisit such a time, and would very much like to fast forward to the way things are now, as imperfect as it still is.
  • wildcat Flaming... 2012/05/23 02:38:33
    wildcat
    The point is, that in 1967 The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a Civil Right. Why is it not a Civil Right for all today?
  • Rono 2012/05/22 07:46:10
    Wildcat, what is your point?
    Rono
    +1
    Nevermind, I got it!
  • tweet_tweet 2012/05/18 05:18:05
    Wildcat, what is your point?
    tweet_tweet
    +1
    I chose this for lack of another answer. I did not know that. Only 1967? That's embarrassing. Better late than never I guess. Thanks for posting.
  • nothingbutthetruth 2012/05/18 05:13:54
    Wildcat, what is your point?
    nothingbutthetruth
    And?
  • wildcat nothing... 2012/05/22 23:30:45
    wildcat
    The Supreme Court in 1967 said that marriage is a Civil Right. So why is now not considered a Civil Right?
    It ain't rocket surgery
  • nothing... wildcat 2012/05/26 06:22:09
    nothingbutthetruth
    But who said, marriage was not a Civil Right in this time and age?
  • wildcat nothing... 2012/05/26 06:28:16
    wildcat
    +1
    There are 30 states in the US that have laws against Gay Marriage at this time. If it is a Civil Right then all have that right.
  • nothing... wildcat 2012/05/26 07:19:09
    nothingbutthetruth
    Each State has it's own laws and rules, if we/ you are against these laws and rules, write to them and state your point.
  • wildcat nothing... 2012/05/26 12:22:53
    wildcat
    But, in 1967 the Supreme Court decreed that in the United States all of the United States marriage is a Civil Right. Look at my picture above. All of those red states had state laws against interracial marriage and after the Supreme Court decision those laws were all over turned by the Supreme Court.
  • nothing... wildcat 2012/05/27 09:16:26
    nothingbutthetruth
    +1
    Well, nothing will ever stays the same. There are lot more things to overturn.
  • Scott 2012/05/18 02:55:41
    yes, I knew that
    Scott
    +5
    The RWNJs ALWAYS end up on the wrong side of history (when it comes to social mores). That's why democrats are known as progressives. I don't care if it's interracial marriage, segregation, women's suffrage, or gay rights, RWNJs will always be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the mainstream. I guess it's inevitable if you're the party of hate. Regressives are always going to be overtaken.
  • Broban 2012/05/18 01:56:23
    yes, I knew that
    Broban
    +4
    It was deemed constitutional by the Supreme court in Loving v. Virginia.

    Funny thing is, the Supreme court said that marriage was a civil right. So then why don't homosexuals get this civil right?
  • wildcat Broban 2012/05/18 02:15:35
    wildcat
    +2
    Bingo
    Thanks for your reply
  • Mark In... Broban 2012/05/18 03:07:02
    Mark In Irvine
    +1
    they will ... the SCOTUS decision about the two guys in Texas paves the way for that ...
  • nothing... Broban 2012/05/26 06:23:45
    nothingbutthetruth
    Ask the Republicans the question you are now asking us here on SodaHead.(:
  • L1 2012/05/18 01:01:08
    yes, I knew that
    L1
    +2
    Yes, I knew that. Check out the Loving case.
    Prejudices die hard, and the late date is only proof of that.
  • wildcat L1 2012/05/18 02:15:47
    wildcat
    +1
    thank you for your reply
  • Simmering Frog 2012/05/18 00:51:24
    Wildcat, what is your point?
    Simmering Frog
    The race of men or women is irrelevant because it's still a man and a woman getting married.
  • L1 Simmeri... 2012/05/18 01:02:09
    L1
    +4
    No, it isn't. The point is the prejudices in our society to other people's personal relationships.
  • Simmeri... L1 2012/05/18 01:13:35
    Simmering Frog
    So you would support 5 people getting married in one marriage if they all want agree to it?
  • L1 Simmeri... 2012/05/18 01:15:01 (edited)
    L1
    +3
    If we are talking consenting adults, I really don't care. I prefer to let able adults live and let live.
  • Simmeri... L1 2012/05/18 02:07:11 (edited)
    Simmering Frog
    So you want marriage to mean anything consenting adults agree to. I see.
  • L1 Simmeri... 2012/05/18 02:14:24
    L1
    +3
    What's the big deal? Polygamy is legal in other parts of the world. If consenting adults want to marry other likewise adults, let them be.
    I really don't care, but I sure don't like others dictating how the rest should love.
  • Simmeri... L1 2012/05/18 17:53:42
    Simmering Frog
    See, I made my point. You want to redefine marriage to something completely different than what it currently is. Yet, "your side' is completely denying that is what they are doing. You just threw "your side" under the bus and proved my point. Thank you.
  • L1 Simmeri... 2012/05/18 18:06:11
    L1
    How so? Marriage has always existed in differing forms throughout time in the world and not by "your definition." As for my side, define my side; do you really know my side? You are throwing straw men in your argument and not proving anything.

    You did a pretty go job of throwing yourself off the cliff, let alone under the bus, by being so presumptuous.
  • Simmeri... L1 2012/05/18 18:09:15
    Simmering Frog
    You are having trouble recognizing when you lose an argument, aren't you?
  • L1 Simmeri... 2012/05/18 18:27:05 (edited)
    L1
    +1
    Are you being a troll or an idiot or worse, a bigot? You don't know my side first of, and second you haven't came out and defined exactly what your presumptions are.

    The thread and poll asks about interracial marriage. You put it shouldn't matter because it's a man and woman. It DOES matter in much of the world still, and in some Middle East countries, it's not legal for women and and punishable by death. In other places, including the US, it's still frowned upon by more than just a few and culturally these prejudices exist and by using religious texts as their back up.

    I put that I support what consenting adults do, I support this, and you've taken this to whole other implied place such as gay marriage by using polygamy as your example, and I never mentioned that and yet it you took it there, and I answered you honestly. You want to come out and declare your true assumptions, do so, but without the straw men.

    Now, if you want to make more of it than what it is, your problem. If you think you are that "important" enough to win anything online from me or anyone, you are mistaken.

    Everyone here has the right to post an opinion and to disagree with it, including you and I. You don't like mine, too bad. Get over it.
  • Solomon... L1 2012/05/18 20:25:00
    Solomonster
    +2
    Let me tell you. I have never seen more ignorant postings by anyone to dumb down the stupidity of this Simmering Frog character. & you know the worst part is. According to his profile, this guys 45 years old! I mean this guy is competeing with rediculously misguided teenageers! And still, try as you might, you'll never find a more depressingly ignorant, stupid old man. The saving grace? He's 45 & still single. So at least we know this laughable goon isn't reproducing. He'll be weeded out soon enough. Just kick back & laugh for now.
  • L1 Solomon... 2012/05/19 01:24:07
    L1
    +1
    I don't know anything about Simmering Frog, Solomon. All I know is that he just doesn't like my opinion and chooses straw men for his argument. I respect that other people can disagree. Sure, that's ok, we are all human and that is to be expected, but I hate logical fallacies like straw men and that's what he did.
  • wildcat L1 2012/05/19 01:25:47
    wildcat
    +1
    good for you
  • Solomon... L1 2012/05/19 05:15:19
    Solomonster
    +2
    Well, he did the exact same thing to me in another post on here which for one started with the word "If". "If you could..." to be exact. So I left an answer to the question. And he attacked my reply in most rediculous way I think a person could. I have heard the term that there is a thin line between insanity & genius. So before getting to wound up, I decided to learn more about him. But nope! No genius there. just senseless ramblings & banter. Nothing more.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/16 15:04:02

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals