Posted on 07/11/2006 10:21:56 AM PDT by SmithL
World War II was still raging when Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis applied to the Los Angeles County clerk's office for a marriage license and were turned down because a state law prohibited "all marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes. … "
In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled in their favor, albeit by a 4-3 margin, striking down the state's 1872-vintage anti-miscegenation law. Roger Traynor, later to become the court's chief justice, rejected defense arguments that nonwhites were mentally or socially inferior and declared in the majority opinion that marriage is "a fundamental right of free men."
"Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws," Traynor wrote.
Perez v. Sharp was a legal milestone, issued 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court erased all laws barring racial intermarriage, and today is a centerpiece of efforts by advocates of same-sex marriage to invalidate Proposition 22, the 2000 ballot measure that declared only marriages between men and women will be officially recognized.
When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the legal battle was launched in the form of two cases, one appealing a San Francisco judge's declaration that Newsom's action was legal, and another directly challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 22.
Traynor's words in the 1948 Perez decision were cited repeatedly Monday as the District Court of Appeal in San Francisco heard oral arguments on the twin cases. Lawyers for San Francisco and gay rights groups argued that Proposition 22 is as inherently violative of personal liberty as the anti-intermarriage statute.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Tying Miscegenation laws in with Homosexual activities is crap. There is a big difference between miscegenation and perversion.
"World War II was still raging when Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis applied to the Los Angeles County clerk's office for a marriage license and were turned down because a state law prohibited "all marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes. … "
How does the striking down of a law that prohibited marriage based upon racial characteristics have anything with laws that prohibit marriage based on perverse sexual preferences?
Did someone *finally* find the gay gene, or are they just hitting the drum one more time in hopes that it will start beating itself?
Traynor's words in the 1948 Perez decision were cited repeatedly Monday as the District Court of Appeal in San Francisco heard oral arguments on the twin cases. Lawyers for San Francisco and gay rights groups argued that Proposition 22 is as inherently violative of personal liberty as the anti-intermarriage statute.
For any interested:
California Appellate Court First District: Same Sex Marriage (part 1)
[Size: 176 MB, Duration: 2:06:46]
mms://63.201.172.140/tcc_on_demand/0710A.wmv
California Appellate Court First District: Same Sex Marriage (part 2)
[Size: 138 MB, Duration: 1:39:30]
mms://63.201.172.140/tcc_on_demand/0710B.wmv
"World War II was still raging when Andrea Perez and Sylvester Davis applied to the Los Angeles County clerk's office for a marriage license and were turned down because a state law prohibited "all marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes. … ""
All I needed to read. So now gay is equated to race. That's about as dishonest as one can get.
What do black people think about this? Gay people are equating their CHOICE of sexual fetishes with a person being born a certain color. That has GOT to be insulting, especially with how blacks were once treated.
Sex is a much more basic factor for differentiation than race or national origin. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
The attorneys will be busy with this for many years. Same sex marriage will be legal in a few states, I bet. So there will be inevitable lawsuits about :
# 1 will a gay marriage from Mass. or another state have to be legally recognized in another state.
# 2 Does the Federal gov't have to recognize gay marriage, thus overturning the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.
# 3 if forced to recognize gay marriage, will beneits relating to children, such as tax exemptions for dependent children, be ruled unconstitutional because the gay couple, most of who will be childless, don't get such a benefit for dependents?
# 4 If it's discriminatory to define marriage as two people opposite sex, will the same reasoning then be used in the future to legalize polygamy, group marriage, adult child marriages, incest, etc. In other words, where will it be legal to draw the line, legally speaking, if we toss out the concept of monogamous opposite sex marriage?
Interacial marriages produce children. One of the issues in interacial marriages is that it forced children to be "bastards" in the traditional sense of the term.
In those days you were expected to marry the woman you got pregnant.
Homosexuals do not produce children and their "marriage" would never ever ever, "de-bastardize" a child unless the homosexual married the natural mother or father. (IOW the person of the opposit sex)
ALL homosexual arguments surrounding the "race hijack" ignore children and COMPLETLY IGNORE THE REASON FOR THE ORIGINAL CASE. (law school constitutional law YEAR ONE)
The issue in the interacial marriage case surrounded skin color and children.
The issue in homosexual marrying surrounds poping orgasms with members of the same sex. No children produced from that sexual fetish.
I suspect the trend given that the supermajority of states are going to prohibit ANY FORM of marriage outside of one man and one woman will be the following:
1. Only Mass will ever have actual homosexual marriage.
2. Mass. homosexual marriages will be accorded the same de facto status of "civil unions". Just as the vermont civil unions do not cross state lines even without the 1996 DMA, the Mass. marriages will not cross state lines.
3. Homosexual "marriages" with children will be treated the same as cohabitating homoseuxals who adopt. If both adopt the child, assuming it is even legal, then the child will be treated accordingly. The truth is that homosexual sex partners generally do not adopt the child.
Remeber 27 states do not allow second parent adoptions or severly restrict the practice. (IOW a child may ONLY HAVE a mother and a father. not two of either)
as for the last point, you are right on point. If you allow homosexuals to marry based on the myth of a "love test" under the law, then all those moslems who were denied spousal visas for wife numbers 2-4 will have standing to sue. This includes all rebel mormons. This inclues every wacko group. This includes animal sex people.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
Homosexual "marriage" and bi-racial marriage can be compared when we start finding former black people, former white people and former Asians.
Until that time, no grounds for comparison.
(And the obvious fact that race is benign and neutral and homosexuality is neither benign nor neutral, plus it's defined solely by actions.)
I'm really getting disgusted at comparing those who practice same sex acts with people of particular racial groups. It's damn insulting!
-in addition to being absurd and delusional...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.