Replies

They were for the right to choose one's associates, but in the same breath they wanted the government to weild its coercive force to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying one another.

To be more specific, they wanted to prevent the Federal government from repealing state miscegenation laws.

Many people here believe that states have the right to tell people what they can put in their body, even if the Federal government does not. I wonder if those same people would argue that the state does not have the right to tell people whom they can and cannot marry.

They not were against the federal government interfering these laws, of course, they actively worked for these laws in their own states.

"Many people here believe that the states have the right to tell people what they can put in their body..."

Ah, Geez. Read the XXI*st Amendment.

The XIV*th Amendment squelches your desire to have states tell people who they can and cannot marry, since marriage in the US is a matter of civil law regarding life, liberty and property, among other things.

Grow up, fer chrissakes.

Many people here believe that states have the right to tell people what they can put in their body, even if the Federal government does not. I wonder if those same people would argue that the state does not have the right to tell people whom they can and cannot marry.

States have no rights, only powers. They don't get those powers, for the most part, from the Federal government, nor from the Federal Constitution. They get them from the people of the state via the state Constitution. While I oppose the states having those particular powers, I don't see any power given to the federal government, any branch, to take them away if the people of the state give them to the state government, unless they violate the rights of citizens of the United States as protected by the bill of rights and the 14th amendment. Even then, only the "guarantee of republican government" clause (Art IV Sec 4 US Constitution) gives the federal government any power in the matter.

The point in this case is separation of powers, not "states rights".