By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Somewhere out there Mildred Loving must be smiling and wondering how things could change so much since 1967. You might recall Ms. Loving as the African-American and Virginia resident who had the audacity to marry a white man and then procreate in the Virginia of the 1960s. Charged with violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, an anti-miscegenation law which criminalized marriages between members of different races, the case was heard in Hanover Courthouse, where liberty’s most eloquent spokesman, Patrick Henry, once argued the famous Parson’s Case. Circuit Court Judge Leon Bazile, whose portrait still hangs in the hallway of the new courthouse, sentenced the couple to one year in prison suspended upon the condition they would leave their home state. In doing so, he announced to the world that Virginia would not step so quickly away from its historical racism:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed in that southern gentlemen way it perfected with soon-to-be Chief Justice Harry Carrico stating deftly that Virginia would not depart from state precedent notwithstanding a U.S. Supreme Court overruling discrimination based on race and that any change in social mores concerning marriage should come from the Virginia legislature. Fat chance of that Justice Carrico knew, given the state’s history of Massive Resistance to any kind of racial desegregation. Carrico passed the proverbial buck and it was up to the Warren Court to right the wrong.
Earl Warren did right the wrong and in so doing insured that love would be colorblind, saying flatly in Loving v. Virginia:
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
On Valentines Day 2014, word spread that a federal judge in Norfolk had issued an opinion reiterating the words of Chief Justice Warren and that was every bit as controversial to some in the Old Dominion. And the arguments involved were every bit as religious and tradition-based as the ones relied upon by Judge Bazile in denying Mildred and Richard Loving their rights as human beings.
Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, appointed by President Obama, in a 41 page opinion struck down Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban on constitutional grounds despite a plebiscite in 2006 which amended the Commonwealth’s Constitution to read:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.~Va.Const,art.I,§15-A.
Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships. Such relationships are created through the exercise of sacred, personal choices — choices, like the choices made by every other citizen, that must be free from unwarranted government interference.
And what exactly were the justifications proffered by the Commonwealth (before recently elected Attorney General Mark Herring reversed course and joined the plaintiffs in the case) in defense of the indefensible? Why the two most respected of Virginia traditions– the Christian religion and tradition itself. No doubt Virginia’s laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman “were rooted in principles embodied by men of Christian faith,” Wright Allen wrote. “However, although marriage laws in Virginia are endowed with this faith-enriched heritage, the laws have nevertheless evolved into a civil and secular institution sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Virginia, with protections and benefits extended to portions of Virginia’s citizens.”
Vanquishing the argument from religion, Wright Allen took on the most sacred of sacred cows in Virginia. “The legitimate purposes proffered by the proponents for the challenged laws—to promote conformity to the traditions and heritage of a majority of Virginia’s citizens, to perpetuate a generally recognized deference to the state’s will pertaining to domestic relations laws, and, finally, to endorse ‘responsible procreation’—share no rational link with Virginia marriage laws being challenged,” wrote the judge, herself an African-American, who understands a thing or two about Virginia’s traditions in regards to its minority citizens.
And don’t think Judge Wright Allen was fooled for a moment by that old canard about marriage serving the purposes of the state in promoting procreation:
The goal and the result of this legislation is to deprive Virginia’s gay and lesbian citizens of the opportunity and right to choose to celebrate, in marriage, a loving, rewarding, monogamous relationship with a partner to whom they are committed for life. These results occur without furthering any legitimate state purpose.
Judge Wright Allen thus joins the unanimous opinion of every other federal judge who has considered and ruled on this issue. That holds no sway for conservatives in the Commonwealth like the sponsor of the same-sex marriage ban, our very own Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William). Marshall, who once said that children born with handicaps after an abortion by their mothers were a “special punishment” from God, quickly called for the judge’ s impeachment. The Family Research Council said the decision “reeks of political show” and demonstrates a “personal political agenda.”
Still most in the Commonwealth were smiling as attitudes about gay marriage have changed considerably since the 2006 ban garnered 57% of the vote of participating Virginians in favor of the amendment. Current polling shows that 50 percent of registered Virginia voters support same-sex marriage, while 43 percent oppose it.
Oh, and the real reason we know that Mildred Loving is smiling down on us: Judge Allen Wright, began her historic opinion with a passage written by Mildred Loving in her essay, Loving for All, that says all that really needs to be said about denying people that which they are due simply for being people:
We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is? … I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. … I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Source: Washington Post
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Rafflaw, down boy!
George, how long has marriage been in existence? Has marriage always been tied to belief in God, any god? What about those nomads who traded brides for some goats? How about animists? Did they marry? Marriage isn’t a construct that is strictly associated with belief in god in many societies, how about Native Americans? I believe they married, did they not?
annie,
I saw a hot Yellow Lab the other day. I wonder if she is single??
Annieofwi
First, people still die of pneumonia and people still go blind from cataracts. You didn’t address that marriage was defined by God from the beginning and man has no right to change it. IF YOU aspire to disagree then by changing the definition MEANS that anyone who then wants to marry their animal will have a case because they will argue it as a right.
Natural. It was natural for old folks to die of pneumonia. Now there is a pneumovax. it was natural for old folks to go blind from cataracts, now we have lens implants, so on and so forth.
It’s always a winning argument to compare a homosexual marriage to a marriage between human and canine.
If America decides to change the God given definition of marriage then that door can never be shut. In other words if down the road an american wants to marry their dog they can’t be denied.
Marriage was defined with the creation of Adam and Eve. Who are we to change its definition? Those who do not believe in God can’t run away from the fact that only a man and a woman can pro-create naturally which provides evidence to what marriage is all about.
Should couples who use scientific methods to have their children also be denied marriage rights? Do only “natural” offspring count now? The children are flesh and blood human children. Why should anyone care how they were conceived? It is the height of irrationality to claim only naturally conceived children make a real family. How unfair to adoptive parents and adoptive children, and those children conceived outside a Fallopian tube.
Annie, you are changing the subject. The point about reproduction only has to do with defining marriage as a fundamental right which places it under strict scrutiny review. Nobody is saying that only those who reproduce can marry.
Apples and oranges, randyjet.
Same sex couples adopt children, they create a family for these children to be brought up in, instead of staying in the foster care system. Same sex couples also use artificial insemination to concieve children, a way in which they contribute to the continuance of the human race. If marriage is concerned mainly with offspring, gay couples manage to have them too.
David: The Court doesn’t address reproduction in Loving, it cites Skinner as a supporting reason for its holding, not a main one. The harm that the Loving’s were claiming was that their right to marry wrongfully infringed upon, not that the laws made it illegal for them to have children.
RTC wrote: “The Court doesn’t address reproduction in Loving, it cites Skinner as a supporting reason for its holding, not a main one.”
You are wrong, as I already plainly proved from the text of Loving v. Virginia. Loving cites Skinner as the basis for defining the right to marry as a fundamental right, which is ONLY because of its role in reproduction. Normal contract law is treated under rational basis review, not strict scrutiny. My position is that same sex unions fall under the right of association and contract law, and they are therefore subject to rational basis review. In contrast, opposite sex unions involve reproduction and the propagation of the species. Accordingly, they fall under strict scrutiny judicial review. Because Loving involves strict scrutiny review and same sex unions do not, the Loving case does not apply in the manner that the newer modern judges are applying it. It is sloppy judicial activism on their part. They are just pushing their own political agendas rather than working hard at understanding the issues involved.
” as I already plainly proved from the text of Loving v. Virginia. Loving cites Skinner as the basis for defining the right to marry as a fundamental right, which is ONLY because of its role in reproduction.”
Actually what you quoted was “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” and some further elaboration along that line. I don’t see anything here that makes the claim that marriage is a fundamental right solely or ‘only’ because of its role in reproduction.
But even if the decision did make the claim that the fundamental civil right of marriage flows ‘only’ from reproduction there would still be problems for your position. Same sex couples also reproduce. They may need some help through modern technology. But many same sex couples take strong measures and make the very same sacrifices as any other parent to assure that there genetic endowment is passed on to future generations.
Surely no reasonable person would limit the legal definition of reproduction to biological reproduction. That makes no sense at all, either from the point of view of the state or the individual. It is the complete cycle of reproduction including the formation of family and the role of parenting that gives meaning to the legal definition of reproduction.
That complete cycle of reproduction is what gives the state an interest in reproduction because that is the process that brings forth new citizens. And it is that full cycle of reproduction including parenting and family like that gives meaning for the individual. A legal concept of reproduction that included anything less than full family life for the individual would imply unspeakable cruelty for the individual. Would anyone care to argue there is a right to produce a child but no right to care for the child and assure its nurture and development? I think not.
No reasonable person could possibly claim that marriage is about biological reproduction only with no further claim regarding parenting and family life.
Even if you get to the point that marriage is a right solely because of reproduction, you are still left with the right of marriage for same sex couples because they also choose to reproduce, parent and conduct family life – much the same as all other married people.
If marriage is about the states interest in assuring a supply of new citizens there is no rational basis exclude same sex couples. They reproduce, parent and have families much the same as any other parents.
And if the right to marriage is about a natural right to make basic personal decisions about our closest and most meaningful relations then certainly same sex couples are entitled to the same respect and recognition as all other marrieds.
The refusal to recognize the right of same sex couples to marriage cannot be supported by rational argument.
bigfatmike wrote: “I don’t see anything here that makes the claim that marriage is a fundamental right solely or ‘only’ because of its role in reproduction. I don’t see anything here that makes the claim that marriage is a fundamental right solely or ‘only’ because of its role in reproduction.”
The language and logic came from the question of whether or not the State should be allowed to sterilize habitual criminals. You do not see anything about reproduction in this logic?
bigfatmike wrote: “The refusal to recognize the right of same sex couples to marriage cannot be supported by rational argument.”
That’s like saying, “The refusal to recognize the right of automobiles to be called airplanes cannot be supported by rational argument.”
It seems like you are arguing that scientific technology can modify same sex couples to function just like opposite couples so that they are the same, and therefore all same sex unions ought to be treated identical to opposite sex unions. That does not make for rational argument from my perspective.
Did you watch the video of Masha Gessen? What did you think about her opinion, that gay marriage fundamentally changes the institution of marriage and ultimately destroys it, and that gays are lying when they claim it doesn’t?
Do you think it is right for gays to destroy the institution of marriage for everyone?
RandyJ: Sorry about that last crack. I don’t want to be a troll. But you’re arguments fallen apart and about played out.
Yoo interpretation pushed beyond the moral boundaries of what society is willing to accept. Like it or not, the majority of Americans view same-sex marriage as morally acceptable. One of the court’s roles is to address violations of civic rights that the legislature hasn’t considered yet. It’s an extra level of protection, courtesy of the Founder’s.
Equal marriage rights even satisfies the “constructionist” standard for constitutionality – reading the entire U.S. Constitution based on chronology – where a newer amendment can’t “deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people”. Similar to building a house: the foundation rarely changes and then additional levels of the house must be built on top of that foundation.
Articles (including the Supremacy Clause) – ratified in 1789
Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) – ratified in 1791
14th Amendment – ratified in 1868
15th Amendment – ratified in 1870
19th Amendment – ratified in 1920
21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition following the 9th Amendment) – 1933
In other words unless a new amendment violates the 9th Amendment (restricting rights), an amendment to the U.S. Constitution can’t violate previous amendments. Federal, state and local laws can clarify and regulate the U.S. Constitution but can’t fundamentally violate any part of the U.S. Constitution.
This view would not only guarantee equal rights for all Americans but would require all government agencies, including intelligence agencies, to operate within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court – short of a constitutional amendment.
Randy
At least one of us has no idea what you’re talking about. To suggest the judge in Virginia should regard and uphold a clearly un-Constitutional state statute rather than strike it down as being so obviously contrary to the precepts of equality of application of the law set forth by the Constitution and the precedence set by such past decisions as in the Loving case requires such a significant degree of twisted logic that it hurts my back to even contemplate. To then go further and charge that the application of the Constitution amounts to an individual prejudice by the judge is nothing short of remarkable. You do know that’s the judge’s job, right? You do know that an un-Constitutional law isn’t Constitutional just because a legislature or a voters’ referendum passes it and that “tradition” isn’t law, right? Just think about it. Don’t respond. You can only embarrass yourself further.
Randy: You did say you’re not an attorney and you’re certainly proving it. Show me where Loving says the decision applies only to a marriage between one man and one woman. Show me where it even addresses the topic of gender. The Court said “persons” had the freedom to choose whom they wish to marry. Seems you’re guilty of a little misinterpretation to me.
The legislature has spelled out in clear language that people may not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. Can’t deny anyone a job, fishing license, or a building permit because they’re gay. The judge in this case has overlaid the logic of the holding in Loving with contemporary anti-discriminatory legislation and decided that freedom encompasses the right of same-sex partners to marry.
You know, John Yoo was not and is not a judge. You know that, right? He was an attorney working for the Justice Dept. who was given a directive to come up with a plausible justification for Bush Co.’s immoral conduct. His chances of becoming a judge because of that finding are nil. It’s not entirely clear why you keep focusing on that, since it has nothing to do with anything with a judicial decision regarding the topic of marriage. But, it’s the type of histrionics that make you arguments look increasingly weak, foolish, and desperate. Is there something you’re not telling us. Is everything ok in the ol’ cockpit, or are you having a little trouble flying straight.
RTC
Just got back from an airshow, so even your ignorance and stupidity have no effect. Since you don’t know obviously when Loving was decided, 1967, you would know that gay marriage had not even been thought of at that time, so to say the term marriage in the Loving decision applies to gay marriage requires that you be a liar or delusional. Your choice. In fact, since plural marriages had been legal at one time in parts of the USA, it would make more sense to try and stretch the word marriage to polygamy, so if you wish to say Loving allows gay marriage, you would have MORE reason to say it applies to plural marriages. I don’t think the judge meant that do you?
I am glad you pointed out that the state cannot deny a job, housing, licenses, based on sexual orientation since that does not mean that just because you get a drivers license, means that you can get truck driving license at the same time. Gays are perfectly free to get a marriage license to a person of the opposite sex. Indeed millions of gays are married to persons of the opposite sex, thus NO DISCRIMINATION. What you want is to say that since you have a drivers license, you are now entitled to a commercial license with no further tests or that a judge can make up a new test because let’s say a high proportion of one race cannot pass a test.
RTC I don’t much care one way or the other about gay marriage. I think it is not needed, but if the state wants to change the laws to allow it, fine. I AM concerned about the willingness to disregard the laws, precedents, and substitute the prejudices and preferences of judges for the law. THAT is worth getting worked up about. As I pointed out that now it is liberals who are violating the law and precedents. Yoo violated the law in the same way by simply declaring waterboarding is not torture. So when he goes on to some court, I am sure he will “evolve” the law to not only include torture, but garroting, and drawing and quartering to be NOT cruel and unusual punishment. He will be able to use the precedents and means others are now using to overturn long established law and precedent. THAT is NOT good.
David: Loving was not about reproduction, it was about marriage and freedom of choice. The subject of reproduction is dealt with by inference. The word reproduction does not appear in the decision and the court dismissed the states interest in preserving the purity of the races.
But, by all means, carry on with your eristic arguments. I’m done here.
Incidentally, heterosexuals may get married and decide not to have children. Probably another sin against god in your eyes.
RTC wrote: “David: Loving was not about reproduction, it was about marriage and freedom of choice. The subject of reproduction is dealt with by inference. The word reproduction does not appear in the decision and the court dismissed the states interest in preserving the purity of the races.”
I agree wholeheartedly with the Loving decision, but I do not agree with the idea that States cannot treat same sex unions differently than opposite sex unions. There are important differences in these two types of unions.
The Loving decision was based upon recognizing marriage as a fundamental right, which places a higher level of scrutiny in regards to State regulation. With strict scrutiny at play, the State must show a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means possible in regulating it. Although the Loving case does not use the actual word “reproduction,” it refers to the reproductive role of marriage when describing marriage as “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” The cases to which the Loving court refers very plainly refer to the reproductive consequence of marriage.
From Loving v. Virginia:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed. It is so ordered.”
The primary case to which the Loving court refers is Skinner v. Oklahoma, which is a case about whether the State was allowed to sterilize habitual criminals. The court said no and opined as follows:
“But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.”
You should notice that the language used in Loving (“Marriage is … fundamental to our very existence and survival”) was language lifted almost verbatim from the Skinner case. The Skinner case was not about the State forbidding marriage at all, but about the State sterilizing prisoners. Marriage comes into that discussion because sterilizing an individual interferes with an important purpose of Marriage, which is procreation.
In the Maynard v. Hill case, marriage is expounded upon in the same vein, as something fundamental to mankind’s survival and propagation. Furthermore, it expounds upon marriage as something more than just a mere contract between two parties. One of the negative effects of gay marriage upon the law has been to change this character of marriage into making it only a contract between two people who agree to it.
From Maynard v. Hill:
“It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
The court connects the concept of marriage with being the foundation for family and society, the obvious inference being the children produced in marriage that provides for the continuance of family and society beyond one generation.
Same sex couples certainly have the right to contract in their association together with each other, but to pretend that same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions is to perpetuate a fraud upon society. It is a lie which will lead to many societal ills, foremost among those who believe the lie and commit their whole lives to a type of relationship that differs significantly from what government taught them about it.
Randy: Not every Supreme Court gets every decision right or wrong. I’m sure the same Court that decided Dredd Scott were spot on in other decisions. The Warren Court got it wrong on sodomy, but subsequent Courts struck down sodomy laws, illustrating the ability of the law and judicial interpretation to evolve, as human understanding and public sentiment develop. The fact that Loving has not been reversed- or even challenged – demonstrate the strength of reasoning upon which it was based, making it a suitable foundation from which the freedom of choice may be expanded to encompass all types of marital relationships. If future courts want to extend these rights to polygamous marriages, that’s fine. I agree with BFM; why anybody would want to invite that upon themselves is beyond me, but if that’s how they express their commitment to one another, why not.
The involvement of the state in sanctioning gay marriage aside, you strike me as a little too worked up about this.
As far as Warren ensuring unanimity for Brown v Board of Education, are you suggesting that he gave dissenters a new car in exchange for their decision? Or is it more likely that he crafted a decision based on reasoning that the other Justices were compelled to agree with. The latter reason is why unanimous decisions are taken more seriously, not because of any talent for arm twisting on the part of the Chief Justice.
RTC
The Loving decision ONLY applied to one man/one woman marriage. This judge simply misapplied that decision by her substituting and re-writing the opinion to suit her definition of marriage instead of applying the decision and law as written. It is like a judge not liking all the horse drawn vehicles clogging the road in his area. He then decides that horse drawn vehicles are subject to the same requirements as motor vehicles, and rules that the horse carts must have license plates, lights, inspection stickers,etc.. He rules that since the carts are vehicles, that the motor vehicle laws apply to them. I think that we would all denounce such judicial overreach.
As for discrimination, that ONLY would apply if the state banned gays from marrying a person of the opposite sex. For the same reason the state must show a compelling interest in denying old couples from marrying a person of the opposite sex. It is not within the legal purview of any court to re-write a law based on their personal prejudices. Now if you can show me in English common law, or statute where gay marriage has been a long established institution, THEN I will agree with the decision in this case. The state has an absolute right to decide what constitutes the definition of marriage as long as all persons are treated EQUALLY under that definition.
This thread has legs. I hope it evolves and is civil. Whether you agree or disagree w/ Mespo, it is a first rate post.
Of course both the Loving case and the issue of gay marriage are related. They’re virtually the same legal case. Prior to the Loving case finally being decided within the context of the rights granted to all American citizens by the US Constitution, many thought it unthinkable to consider the idea of members of different races be married. From the article we see the presiding judge not only ruling against the interracial marriage, but (appallingly, but predictably) using his religious beliefs to convey the belief that the “state” could decide that it’s okay for this grouping of people to marry, but not that grouping. That’s precisely what is at issue regarding same sex marriages. There are NO logical, medical or secular legal reason to deny such marriages. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Nor is the adoption of children. My brother and brother-in-law have each been married over 25 years and have no children. Neither does, will or can the couple that just tied the knot at the retirement community where my Dad lives. But to say that where it used to be that only people of the same race could marry, but now it is fully accepted that any male/female couple can, but not this other group of adult American citizens is an absurdity which cannot be justified except within the context of believing one’s scriptures to be more important than the US Constitution in the formation of our laws. And frankly, such a viewpoint is not only absurd, but it borders on treason and thus should be disregarded as the incoherent ramblings of fools.
Randjey claims, “ou are asking the state to grant you a favor in this kind of marriage. THEN it becomes MY business.”
False. It’s still none of your business.
Unless you are a gay person seeking marriage, this does not affect you or your marriage one iota, your obsession with Loving aside.