CNNs front page story:

Quote :

"Interracial marriages at an all-time high, study says Apparently, race is mattering less these days, say researchers at the Pew Research Center, who report that nearly one out of seven new marriages in the U.S. is interracial or interethnic. The report released Friday, which interviewed couples married for less than a year, found racial lines are blurring as more people choose to marry outside their race. "From what we can tell, this is the highest [percentage of interracial marriage] it has ever been," said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer for the Pew Research Center. He said interracial marriages have soared since the 1980s. About 6.8 percent of newly married couples reported marrying outside their race or ethnicity in 1980. That figure jumped to about 14.6 percent in the Pew report released this week, which surveyed newlyweds in 2008."

Quote :

"But not everyone is willing to accept mixed-race marriages. A Louisiana justice of the peace resigned late last year after refusing to marry an interracial couple. However, studies show that support for interracial marriages is stronger than in the past, especially among the Millennial generation. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, about 85 percent accept interracial marriages, according to a Pew study published in February. Scholars say interracial marriages are important to examine because they can be a barometer for race relations and cultural assimilation. Today's growing acceptance of interracial marriages is a contrast to the overwhelming attitudes 50 years ago that such marriage was wrong -- and even illegal. During most of U.S. history, interracial marriages have been banned or considered taboo, sociologists say."

Quote :

"In 1958, a woman of black and Native American descent named Mildred Jeter had married a white man, Richard Loving. The couple married in Washington, D.C., instead of their home state of Virginia, where state laws outlawed interracial marriages. The couple was arrested by police. Their case made its way to the Supreme Court in the case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, where the justices unanimously ruled that laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional."

For those of you with libertarian leanings, do you think the 1967 Supreme Court made the right decision?

6/5/2010 3:30:32 AM

On a side note about relationship trends:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx

Quote :

"Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold May 25, 2010 PRINCETON, NJ - Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend. "

Interestingly men are slightly more okay with gay couples than women in both age groups they looked at (18-49, 50+). Less surprising, 61% of independents, 61% of Democrats, and 35% of Republican are okay with gay couples.

6/5/2010 3:44:50 AM

My thought is simple:

I could not give less of a shit about different races marrying each other. I've got a parent who cares, depressingly so, but I don't. I do, admittedly, sometimes stare at interracial couples for longer than is acceptable -- but it is in surprised approval. I feel bad that I think it's odd at all.

Now, I must admit, I give perplexed glances to gay couples of both stripes. I don't exactly know why. On a primordial level I think it's weird. On an intellectual level I'm all about it, hey, marry whatever adult will have you. But I can't sit here and act like I'm not put off by the thing. I wish I wasn't. It's not like it fucking matters. I've got plenty of things I'd gladly trade for gay marriage.

6/5/2010 4:00:43 AM

Quote :

"For those of you with libertarian leanings, do you think the 1967 Supreme Court made the right decision?"

Of course (libertarians would agree). Were you suggesting otherwise?

6/5/2010 8:03:42 AM

Quote :

"Of course (libertarians would agree). Were you suggesting otherwise?"

Because plenty of libertarians think it's kosher to prohibit this stuff at the State level.

6/5/2010 11:16:32 AM

I'm not sure I get it. Are these libertarians saying that it's a "state's rights" issue?
I would see this more as a "government not being able to interfere with consenting adults" issue.
If two (or more?) people want to form a marriage/contract, what authority does (should) the government have to stop it?

This is because of the mixture of church and state surrounding marriage, isn't it?...



lol at the ads



[Edited on June 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

6/5/2010 11:27:56 AM

^ pretty much. it'd be nice if we could just make the legal requirement for marriage to be two consenting adults, 18 years of age or older.

6/5/2010 11:50:43 AM

Quote :

"For those of you with libertarian leanings, do you think the 1967 Supreme Court made the right decision?"

absolutely. it's wrong to put a black guy in prison for doing the exact same thing a white guy can do with no penalty. I mean, that's pretty black and white, no pun intended

6/5/2010 12:01:35 PM

I am for interracial marriages, IMO mixed race/ethinicity people are generally better looking than single race people. And I think my family is fairly open to me dating/marrying someone from another race. Not all of them would be enthusiastic about it but they would accept it and probably still talk to me, invite me to thanksgiving/christmas.

6/5/2010 12:43:06 PM

i have to admit, i didn't know this was still enough of an issue to warrant a front page news story

6/5/2010 1:04:20 PM

"Interracial marriages at an all-time high, study says"

woot

6/5/2010 1:17:51 PM

Quote :

"Because plenty of libertarians think it's kosher to prohibit this stuff at the State level."

Wait, what? If a state or local law is unconstitutional, it's not "kosher." Banning interracial marriages was a violation of the 14th amendment.

6/5/2010 1:34:11 PM

People damn well better accept it. It's the only way that I'm ever going to have my beautiful black babies.

6/5/2010 1:41:48 PM

Quote :

"Wait, what? If a state or local law is unconstitutional, it's not "kosher." Banning interracial marriages was a violation of the 14th amendment."

Pretty much, but even without the 14th amendment, the arrest was a violation of the constitution. Virginia may have the right to determine how it will grant marriage contracts, but the constitution explicitly states (and this was a condition when all the states signed on) :

Quote :

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

A contract legally formed in another state is fully in effect regardless of the current locations of the parties involved.

6/5/2010 2:13:43 PM

^ eh?

Haven't the recent state-level gay marriage bans specifically included clauses for marriages in other states to not be recognized?

6/5/2010 2:23:36 PM

^ exactly. those states that amended their constitutions are no better than Virginia in 1958.

6/5/2010 2:26:00 PM

Quote :

"Haven't the recent state-level gay marriage bans specifically included clauses for marriages in other states to not be recognized?"

They probably have. Doesn't mean it's constitutional.

6/5/2010 3:08:30 PM

Quote :

"i have to admit, i didn't know this was still enough of an issue to warrant a front page news story"

6/5/2010 9:08:55 PM

I just realized that of the three weddings I have attended, two have been interracial. That balance will have shifted by the end of the year, but it actually never occurred to me until I started ranting about weddings in chit chat.

Although in both cases it was white + Asian/Indian, so maybe that doesn't count.

6/6/2010 3:07:01 AM

^
Interesting remark about interracial couples seemingly not counting unless they're black and white.
(if that's what you meant...)
...and the ads I'm seeing are showing that, although it could just be a commercial demographics thing.

Quote :

"For those of you with libertarian leanings, do you think the 1967 Supreme Court made the right decision?"

Quote :

"Because plenty of libertarians think it's kosher to prohibit this stuff at the State level."

I'd still like to know why Supplanter and McDanger seem to think of libertarians this way.

I mean, I pointed out the basic libertarian principle (individuals have all liberties that don't infringe on others,) then d357r0y3r and 1337 b4k4 pointed out the 14th Amendment and the Full Faith & Credit Clause, respectively -- but I'd like Supplanter and McDanger to explain their side of things. What exactly did you guys hear about libertarians that led you to believe we might be cool with bans on interracial marriage?

6/6/2010 7:49:43 AM

Yes it was the correct decision. I also recently pwnt Aaronburro using the full faith and credit clause in a soapbox thread on gay marriage.

The way our legal system is set up, the US Constitution trumps any state constitution if there is conflict.

6/6/2010 9:17:35 AM

Quote :

"I'd still like to know why Supplanter and McDanger seem to think of libertarians this way."

From talking to libertarians. Of course I know nothing in the actual philosophy would support state control of personal, victimless behavior. But the sad fact is that plenty of RELOVEUTION goons were certainly down with banning gay marriages in their states.

6/6/2010 9:19:17 AM

Quote :

"libertarians ... RELOVEUTION goons"

Oh, I see.
I thought perhaps there was some technical legal thing defending that position.
Generally speaking, pro-financial-liberty people who push their religious/social beliefs on others aren't libertarians, they're republicans.

6/6/2010 9:36:53 AM

Quote :

"Generally speaking, pro-financial-liberty people who push their religious/social beliefs on others aren't libertarians, they're republicans."

Yeah of course but eventually common usage redefines terms.

6/6/2010 9:44:13 AM

Pro-financial liberty folks who push their religious and social norms on others.... wouldn't they just be called right wing republicans?

6/6/2010 9:55:53 AM

You'd think so right!!!

6/6/2010 9:58:28 AM

Quote :

"From talking to libertarians. Of course I know nothing in the actual philosophy would support state control of personal, victimless behavior."

Well certainly each state has the right to define which contracts it will and will not allow under the laws of that state, but full faith and credit requires that they honor any valid contracts formed under the laws of any other state. And certainly the states have a much better claim to the regulation of marriage contracts than the federal government does.

Of course, like I've said before, this would be a whole lot easier if the government would get out of the marriage business in its entirety.

6/6/2010 10:24:26 AM

Quote :

"Yeah of course but eventually common usage redefines terms."

McDanger, a republican by any other name would smell just as foul.
Do you hope to squash the libertarian movement by having some liberals repeat, en mass, what is said by a few republicans-in-libertarian-clothing, until most liberals incorrectly view libertarians as nothing but republicans?

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 12:51:17 PM

Quote :

"Interesting remark about interracial couples seemingly not counting unless they're black and white. (if that's what you meant...)"

I was half-joking, but yeah. When people hear "interracial," I'd wager they overwhelmingly think of "white/black."

My mom, whose position on race issues is occasionally a source of friction, has actively encouraged me to pursue Indian girls. I'm certain she wouldn't worry much about other Asians, and probably not Hispanics. But she's made it very clear that a black girl would be problematic for her. I get the impression that she is not alone in this type of thinking.

6/6/2010 2:05:16 PM

Quote :

"moron: ^ eh? Haven't the recent state-level gay marriage bans specifically included clauses for marriages in other states to not be recognized?"

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: They probably have. Doesn't mean it's constitutional."

At least as far as full faith and credit goes, it's constitutional due to Congressional adoption of DOMA in 1996. The law basically says states can choose whether or not to recognize marriages under the full faith and credit clause if those marriages involve same-sex couples, which fits with the Constitution's "[T]he Congress may by general laws prescribe... the effect thereof."

Whether it's constitutional under the 14th Amendment or other arguments is another matter. So far as I'm aware the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on the issue. 

6/6/2010 2:21:47 PM

Quote :

"McDanger, a republican by any other name would smell just as foul. Do you hope to squash the libertarian movement by having some liberals repeat, en mass, what is said by a few republicans-in-libertarian-clothing, until most liberals incorrectly view libertarians as nothing but republicans?"

The libertarian movement is a political whipping boy for liberal democrats. They don't care what real libertarians believe, all they care about is getting "their side" in office and squelching any dissenting views. I'm not going to say that all libertarians believe the exact same things, but anyone that says the government should be telling people who they can and can't be in a relationship with is not a libertarian.

I can't tell you how many discussions I've had with people about libertarianism, and almost immediately they'll start blurting out statements like, "Oh, so you think corporations should be able to do whatever they want? You don't give a shit about the environment? You support <talking point of the current mainstream Republican party>?" There's a lot of work to be done, because as long as we have people like McDanger spreading misinformation, there's going to be a lot of ignorant people to educate.

6/6/2010 2:43:36 PM

why don't you 2 set the record straight now, and lay out what libertarians actually believe, if it's not what Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Baggers say?

6/6/2010 2:54:37 PM

Quote :

"The libertarian movement is a political whipping boy for liberal democrats. They don't care what real libertarians believe, all they care about is getting "their side" in office and squelching any dissenting views."

Just to nitpick, you can easily make this case about socially conservative 'pubs as well. Accusing only one side of the spectrum as being against your views is disingenuous.

6/6/2010 3:02:42 PM

Race is still a big issue because they're still writing articles about it.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : no s.]

6/6/2010 3:05:13 PM

^
Nicely put.


^^^
You really are a moron. What do Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Party have to do with libertarianism?
Do you understand how Venn diagrams work? Do you remember learning sets in middle school math?
You understand that simply believing something is a certain way, doesn't actually make it that way, right?


^^^^
That's the feeling I get.
I think it's actually a conscious effort by liberal McDouches to abuse language and deliberately and deceptively spread such misinformation. Clearly these liberals are smart enough to know that a few republicans erroneously labeling themselves as libertarians doesn't actually change what libertarianism is -- but that's how they act. It's a huge bundle of straw-men, and as far as I'm concerned, the low-down nature of it -- how they clearly only care about "getting 'their side' in office and squelching any dissenting views" -- completely removes their credibility. I mean, shit: moron just asked what libertarianism is, "if it's not what Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Baggers say". "if it's not what Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Baggers say"??? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote :

"Just to nitpick, you can easily make this case about socially conservative 'pubs as well. Accusing only one side of the spectrum as being against your views is disingenuous."

Actually, no. We're talking about libertarians vs liberals. Not socially conservative 'pubs. There are no sides, there is no spectrum. Acting as though there is, is disingenuous.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 3:07:41 PM

^ Excuse me, I wasn't aware that you were directing the conversation. Forgive me for making an observation that doesn't fit the argument you wish to make.

6/6/2010 3:12:34 PM

^
I'm just saying it doesn't fit any argument anyone is trying to make in this thread. Sorry.

6/6/2010 3:14:07 PM

Quote :

"You understand that simply believing something is a certain way, doesn't actually make it that way, right? "

IOW, the only thing that is libertarian is what you say is libertarian. Gotcha...

6/6/2010 3:15:51 PM

^^ I'm aware of that. I just pointed out inaccuracy in his statement. That's why I prefaced it by saying that I was nitpicking.

Carry on with the additional mindless banter.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 3:17 PM. Reason : moron with the quickness]

6/6/2010 3:16:42 PM

^^
Dude, you're not even making sense. Even if you're trolling, you should try to make sense.
I mean, what's your major malfunction? You just keep asking way-off questions that have nothing to do with anything.
What do I or Ron Paul or the Tea Party have to do with libertarianism? What fucking point are you trying to make?
You're failing so much it makes my eyes hurt.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 3:20 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 3:19:42 PM

Quote :

"indy: You just keep asking way-off questions that have nothing to do with anything."

moron’s questions:

1. Haven't the recent state-level gay marriage bans specifically included clauses for marriages in other states to not be recognized?

2. why don't you 2 set the record straight now, and lay out what libertarians actually believe, if it's not what Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Baggers say?

indy’s (recent) questions:

1. What do Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Party have to do with libertarianism?

2. Do you understand how Venn diagrams work?

3. Do you remember learning sets in middle school math??

4. You understand that simply believing something is a certain way, doesn't actually make it that way, right?

5. What the fuck is wrong with you?

6. I mean, what's your major malfunction?

7. What do I or Ron Paul or the Tea Party have to do with libertarianism?

8. What fucking point are you trying to make?

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 7:17 PM. Reason : DO YOU REMEMBER FRACTIONS?!?!]

6/6/2010 7:16:51 PM

^
Um, exactly. His question (#2) and follow-up post are way-off and don't address anything that anyone's said.
Both weak straw-man fallacies, it looks like.
I'm asking him what his fucking problem is -- because he certainly has one. Complete moron.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 7:25:16 PM

Quote :

"Dude, you're not even making sense. Even if you're trolling, you should try to make sense. I mean, what's your major malfunction? You just keep asking way-off questions that have nothing to do with anything. What do I or Ron Paul or the Tea Party have to do with libertarianism? What fucking point are you trying to make? You're failing so much it makes my eyes hurt. "

lol, the 18 year old who just discovered libertarianism is angry, it seems…

The point is that language is fluid, and if the prevailing face of “liberatarianism” becomes people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul and the tea baggers, their views are going to de facto become what “liberatarianism” is. And then the sub group of people like you are going to ride their coattails to a semblance of respectability, then start whining (like you’re doing now) that they’re not “real” libertarians. As far as the public is concerned at this point, libertarians are just republicans who don’t have the guts to call themselves republicans.

Why do you think this is? Why are there ZERO “real” libertarians in national, or even state-level politics, in spite of the tea bag movement?

6/6/2010 7:26:03 PM

^
You fuckers are crazy. You think you can stop a movement with language? Libertarians own the internet. You will lose.
Freedom always defeats authority.


(lol at "18 year old"... I could be your dad, I bet.)

6/6/2010 7:30:27 PM

hahaha... libertarians own the internet.

6/6/2010 7:32:29 PM

Quote :

"You fuckers are crazy. You think you can stop a movement with language? Libertarians own the internet. You will lose. Freedom always defeats authority. "

Lose to who? Who is this freedom-bringing libertarian? Is there ANY actual person on the horizon AT ALL?

6/6/2010 7:35:44 PM

lol

6/6/2010 7:39:37 PM

Is it possible to face-palm an entire thread?


Because this one deserves it, if any did.

6/6/2010 7:41:23 PM

If libertarians own the internet, then anarchists own indy's balls.

6/6/2010 7:42:18 PM

WHY THE FUCK DO LIBRARIANS OWN THE INTERNET

6/6/2010 7:44:57 PM