"mis·ce·ge·na·tion
noun \(ˌ)mi-ˌse-jə-ˈnā-shən, ˌmi-si-jə-ˈnā-\

: sexual relations or marriage between people of two different races (such as a white person and a black person)"

So what? Some people *still* consider it as immoral as sexual relations between people of the same sex.
(these are double-plus-ungood people, just as someday will also be those who think homosexual relations are immoral... and then adult-child relations... and then human-animal relations... we already accept human-animal relations in the form of Star Trek et al. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAQpKmc...).

Only... after a century of brainwashing, we no longer consider it so immoral to engage in homosexual activities, either.

I don't care what people do with themselves or other consenting people, so long as they keep it out of my universe. I do object, however, to people playing God, by changing the cultural and social beliefs of entire populations out of a baseless feeling of self-righteousness (the war on tobacco is yet another example), through relentless propaganda campaigns that present straw men. With the "bad people" holding the beliefs the manipulators want changed, and the good people holding the beliefs the manipulators want adopted, and with the latter always winning and the former not merely losing, but looking foolish and/or evil in the process.

Do you know there are laws on the books that make it illegal to put boots on farm animals such as sheep? Cause screwing animals was considered immoral, and that was a tactic used to keep the animal being raped from escaping, putting their hind legs in the farmer's boots as he stood behind them.

We're most of us repulsed by this behavior... today... but give the brainwashers a few decades of dedicated effort and who knows what we'll think.

I really don't care if we have miscegenation laws or homosexual marriage laws, so long as the people decide on their own without cultural brainwashing... something they haven't been able to do since the advent of Hollywood.

A driver's license is a contract between a person and the State.

Just how long, especially in this day and age of Humpty Dumpty usage of the Constitution, do you think that will last?

What you're saying is that if I drive my car from OK to CA, with my concealed-carry permitted firearm hidden in my pocket, and a CA cop stops and frisks me, I can go to jail for violating CA law?

And you don't see where this would discourage interstate commerce?

Forget the parallel to that poor marine that got nailed for exercising his right to keep and bear in Mexico (the right exists in Mexico, the Constitution just can't protect it outside U.S. jurisdiction)

Man's natural social form is the tribe, ruled by an oligarchy.

Do we really want to preserve our natural social form?

Which States' names are in the 2nd Amendment, Robbie?

The Founding Fathers always capitalized "State" when referring to a member republic.

Since you were speaking about a member republic of the United States, it must be capitalized.

I've had this argument with idiot teachers and journalists who consider the UPI styleguide to be a Bible, concerning "State", "President" and "Earth" (I had to re-edit my Planetary Society essay entry at the last minute because my f*ing English teacher edited it to de-capitalize "Earth". No, dear teacher, I'm not talking about dirt, but the 3rd planet from the sun...)


I will give you a choice; there is only this choice, there will be no compromise:

You can either capitalize "State" when referring to a member republic, or you can surrender all 2nd Amendment rights. Because that single capitalization is all that stands between you and an abolition of those 2nd Amendment rights.

And then we can go on and do away with "States rights" as defined in the 10th Amendment, since obviously "state" refers to "country" or "nation", not a member republic of the United States. Therefore all powers not granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states... that is, nations... that is, the federal government and the governments of other countries.

" but that sounds a bit more 'permanent' than many 'marriages' seem to turn out.

As a result of earlier assaults on marriage, such as "no-fault" divorce. They should never be able to enter into another contract after violating their oath in such a way... "..til death do us part".

There's a tax advantage to being married because there's a benefit to society from married people.

"It's not a logical or rational reason for defining 'marriage' that way. "

Really? 18 to vote. Citizen to vote. 21 to drink. 18 to enter contracts without parental consent. Social security number to work.

These are all "artificial constraints", all of which have rational, cultural reasons for existing.

What is not rational is to pretend that the function of the genitalia and of romantic feelings is not reproduction... *even among those individuals rendered incapable of producing offspring*.

If I'm impotent or sterile, NOBODY pretends I'm perfectly normal and healthy; it is acknowledged that I'm in some way defective. Likewise with a frigid or sterile woman.

But the destruction of marriage movement does insist that otherwise rational and sane people adopt the absurd notion that there is nothing defective in someone with one set of genitals who is not sexual and/or romantically attracted to people with the other set. And the even MORE absurd notion that there still is something defective about people who are specifically attracted to animals, children, or inanimate objects. All based on the irrelevant affect acting on their attraction may have on the subjects of their attraction, which has nothing to do with the actual attraction.

Oh, the convoluted thought processes you moderns go through just to avoid making judgments that might make some people feel bad (and indifferent to making other people feel bad).

Well, in ancient times, before the sexual promiscuity revolution of the 1960s, a man and a woman would want to be married so they could have sex with one another, legally and morally.

Another cultural more that has been intentionally destroyed.

"gay marriage", "same-sex marriage" has it beat by far on the illogical scale.

Marriage is an extension of the natural bonding of male and female homo-sapiens. While a married couple may not be able to produce children naturally, they can still adopt and provide said children with everything children need; in particular, a father and a mother. One each.

What you all arguing against defending the traditional American institution of marriage are trying to accomplish is the abolition of marriage altogether. To turn it into a meaningless, marginalized ceremony. All for the sake of purist Objectivism. Because any exception to your holy faith might threaten your feelings of superiority, practical reality be damned.

Lovers of rationality and reason cannot... CANNOT support homosexuality as being healthy or normal, nor support those so afflicted as being a separate race/sex/whatever. So those among you who claim to be Objectivists who are defending this destructive "principle"... you're not really Objectivist.

" If we could just extend those privileges to some other definition of couples, not necessarily defined by the marriage word, they would have been satisfied."

As someone who does not favor awarding the unearned, I would not have been satisfied extending those privileges to non-married people.

As with amnesty, I will not compromise.

"Many States even recognize"

" I agree that this seems to be an area of overreach by the state,"

You have your capitalization backwards.

Canard; there are not "too many people".
We are less polluted in this country than were were with half the population.

We are not replacing our population; it is being replaced by immigrants, probably most of them here illegally. Which means that our culture, and with it the cultural values of individual liberty are being diluted and will eventually give way to oligarchy.

and you capitalized State, when I believe you meant "state".

FF&C does not require one state to adopt the legality of another state. For instance, some states allow provisional drivers licenses for people as young as 14. All other states are not required to honor such a license. But they are required to honor a drivers license that meets their own "reasonable" standards. Age is a reasonable standard - extensive written tests are not (as an example, but if the state could demonstrate a significant cause effect relationship for the extensive written testing and reduced accidents, they might have a case).

Thus, a state allowing hetero marriage would be required to accept all hetero marriages from another state, but not necessarily same sex marriages, if they have specifically banned such. Each state is free to do what they wish within their own boundaries, and other states that do similarly are required to honor such. But they are not required to honor something that they have distinctly rejected (unless it has been legally legislated by the federal gov't).

The interpretation of FF&C requiring all states to honor all laws of other states effectively eliminates their own sovereignty. That was never the intent.

But that also opens you up to any adverse actions for that other person. Should they go bankrupt you will be liable for their debts and that item can be used to pay those debts. It's not so fool proof.

Yeah... and you make me think of another question:
Considering the long history of slavery that civilization has... Egypt, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, Britain, the U.S.... I have to wonder which is worse...
A society with a slave class
or
A society with a welfare class?

If Massachusetts decides to redefine marriage to something nonsensical from what it really is, then it's "pretend". I could have said "Iowa" instead.

Considering the easy requirements for getting drivers licenses in some States compared to others, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some cops in some States considered the drivers licenses from certain other States to be "pretend"... :)

Alternate question; in spite of the unConstitutionality of all such laws, what about, say, an Oklahoma concealed-carry permit, which in Oklahoma also keeps one from being harassed while carrying openly... can California refuse to recognize it?

It's not so clear cut. For example, a state that does not allow a full drivers license until the age of 18 is not required to honor a driver permit or provisional license for younger drivers - so your "license" may not be valid in another state.

So too a marriage license. One state that does not permit same sex marriage may not necessarily be required to honor the same sex marriage from another state, while they would be required to honor hetero-marriage.

Full faith and credit should assume the most simple and straightforward interpretation. Those people in one state who permit something do not get to trump the citizens of another state, which your interpretation would do, thus denying them of their sovereignty. So, by that interpretation, a state that does not permit 16 yr old drivers licenses can state that they recognize that you have that right in your home state, yet still prohibit it in their state. Same thing for same sex marriage.

Sorry, Hiraghm, but you've got this one wrong, to whit: Capitalize the word state only when it appears after a state's name, as in "We will travel to Washington State this summer." (But make sure it won't be confused with a visit to the university known as Washington State. Perhaps "state of Washington" would be better.) In the phrase "state of Hawaii," you don't capitalize the word state. Finally, don't capitalize the word state when it's being used as a substitute for the state's name, as in "My father works for the state." It is capitalized, however, in imaginative names such as "the Nutmeg State," "the Empire State," "the Aloha State," and we capitalize "States" when we say things like "We're returning to the States after twenty years in Europe."

Since I was speaking about a generic state of the United States, it should not be capitalized.

It's where we're heading... and not by accident.

Can't follow the link... is it a Howdah Hunter? I've wanted a pistol like that one ever since seeing El Dorado.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Pedersoli...

I often wish I could see a version of "Rio Bravo" mixed with "El Dorado"... James Caan instead of Ricky Nelson, Dean Martin instead of Robert Mitchum, Walter Brennan instead of Arthur Hunnicutt, Angie Dickinson instead of Charlene Holt (although I liked her Maudie). I wouldn't want to be w/o either film, but a mashup of the two I think would be very entertaining.