lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It was the government doing that?
At the time, yes.
Um... No. The government wasn't handing out or receiving dowries. You're being ridiculous.
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
If we're paying attention to facts, we'd realize that prior to Loving v Virginia (back in 1967), the Democrats were whining about black and white people marrying, not conservatives. It was the GOP that fought against racial discrimination for 100 years until the political left realized they were losing on that issue, and changed tactics to oppressing poor people of color by using government entitlement programs.
And guess who jumped ship when the ship changed course? Oh, that's right. Maybe when you try to pay attention to facts, you try paying attention to all of them instead of just the ones that you think make you look good? Especially when trying to do it to someone smarter than you. So, my point that "the same people arguing then are arguing now" is still a fact.
You're reverse defining conservative and liberal in order to fit your current narrative (yes, Semantics!). I know that the Left loves to redefine things to make themselves look better, and the old "all the racists left our party and joined the GOP!" claim is a classic example of this, but it's just not true. The racists simply changed their methodology. They realized that overt discrimination against people of color wasn't working anymore, so they switched to a more covert method of preventing their success by trapping them into entitlement conditions.
The larger point you're missing in your grand labeling scheme is the ideas behind the positions. Why does one hold a position on an issue? And in the case of marriage, the argument in Loving was that since mixed race couples fulfilled the procreative aspect of marriage, and were producing children in their relationships, then not granting them marriage statuses was a violation of their rights. Key point being that it was the fact that they procreated that required them to be allowed to marry.
That same procreative argument is today being used by one "side" of the SSM issue to argue that gay couples should not be granted that status, since they don't meet the same criteria. Regardless of what labels we use, the argument for granting marriage licenses to mixed race couples also applies as an argument against granting those licenses to SS couples. You're free to spin your head around trying to figure out which side was which then, who shifted parties for what reasons in-between, etc. But that doesn't really address the issue at hand right now.
One "side" has been consistent in how it applies the concept of marriage status and benefits. The other "side" plays fast and loose with it and seems primarily to want to use the status (among many other government benefits) as a bargaining chip to get various identity groups to support them politically. Guess which side you are on?