If the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal, should it be?

Please answer the question. I am simply asking a question, yet so many people find it hard to answer. Does the majority ALWAYS rule, or if something is blatanly unfair, should it be overturned, even if the majority say no?








So again, please, PLEASE answer this question. If the majority of Americans (or even the majority in a certain state, if it should be a state issue) think interracial marriage should be illegal, should it be?If the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal, should it be?
The problem with your pitiful attempt to make an analogy to same-sex marriage is that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, with race being immaterial. Interracial marriage doesn't change the definition or basis of a marriage, therefore its prohibition was not constitutional.





But the people can constitutionally define marriage as being between one man and one woman. There is nothing unconstitutional or ';unfair'; (whine, whine) or bigoted or taking of a right about it, because it applies to everybody equally, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation.





Remember, it was the US that told the Mormons they had to get rid of polygamy to join the Union. That set a precedence on the government being able to declare what is and isn't marriage.





Of course, based on your belief, then if Utah chose to allow polygamy, then that would be all good and legal, too. And if Oregon chose to allow multigamy and group marriage, that would be OK.





The fact is that it is exactly this type of decision that must be left to the people, not the courts. The court was given no authority to grant rights or decide social policies. When it does, it is a usurpation of the peoples' rights.If the majority of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal, should it be?
I see what you are trying to poke at the hypocrisy of the issue of marriage and traditional marriage which is being battled out state by state right now.





The sad truth is, yes, if the majority of people out there wanted interracial marriage to be illegal, it would be. Morally, I feel this would be wrong, especially since every single committed relationship I have been involved with has NOT been with someone of my own ethnicity.





Furthermore, your idea was exactly how things were before the civil rights movement. Fortunately, a lot of people protested and eventually changed the majority opinion of what is discrimination so that now everyone has the freedom to marry regardless of ethnicity.... unless of course you are gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc etc. Soon (within 10 years) the GLBTQ community will be able to have the same rights as the heterosexuals will have as well, whither the conservatives like it or not (which they won't.)








Now everyone keeps this idealized state where nothing in the constitution can be changed to favor the majority, and thats just blatantly not true. Take prohibition for example. Majority ushered it in, and eventually majority ushered it out. If enough people wanted it, interracial marriage would be illegal once more
No. Society has made a decision that racial discrimination is wrong, and that there are no differences between races that that the law should take notice of. Likewise, racial segregation has been outlawed.





Some analogize between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. But there ARE basic differences between men and women - they are legally equal under the law but not identical or interchangeable. This recognition of basic biology is seen in the fact that single-sex restrooms are legal whereas racially segregated facilities are not.





Actually, if two-thirds of both houses of Congress and the legislatures of three-quarters of the states wanted to outlaw interracial marriage, or legalize slavery again, it would be theoretically possible. But again society has moved far beyond that. And I'd rather take my chances opposing a constitutional amendment than any other method of changing the Constitution - such as the decision of five unelected judges.
No.





Majority rules is a concept....not a law. If majority always ruled, there would be a lot of minorities without any rights or freedoms.





The majority has been overruled in the courts many times, because sometimes the majority goes against the core constitutional amendments ....giving blacks the ability to vote in Alabama is just one example where the majority was on the losing end.





A more recent example is gay marriage. The majority still wants gay marriage to be illegal, but the minority gay community, makes a strong constitutional case for equality....so some states have began judicially overturning state constitutional amendments that seek to ban gay marriage.
once something is legal and widely practiced and seen as acceptable, it is much harder to outlaw it.





if interracial marriage was already not allowed and seen by a majority as being wrong then it will have a much higher chance of staying illegal





i am just using your example, i am not arguing interracial marriage.





there is a majority that should rule, the minority should be granted rights while the majority is in power. it is up to our constitution to define what these granted rights are.
If two people are denied by popular vote the option of entering into a MAN-WOMAN union simply because of their race, then yes, it should be overturned. Because that is racism.





But if two people are denied by popular vote the opportunity to CHANGE marriage into something OTHER than a MAN-WOMAN union ... well, tough toenails.





That's the way it is. No racism there. No discrimination.





And that is what has happened, by the way, in at least 13 U.S. states. Meanwhile, the number of states that have approved gay marriage in a popular vote is ZERO.





Interracial couples NEVER sought to CHANGE the fundamentali MAN-WOMAN nature of marriage.





Gay marriage advocates ARE doing that.





So, your comparison of interracial marriage to ';gay marriage'; is stupid, no offense.


.
When left to the voters, interracial marriage often WAS illegal on the state level. It took the US Supreme Court to decide that the majority did not have the right to deny marriage. Marriage rights are not an appropriate issue for the masses to decide. The people may think they know their will, but they demonstrated a lack of understanding of our Constitution.
Must be a bunch of young punks on here today. Interracial marriage WAS illegal when I was a young man. I believe the Supreme Court ruling overturning such laws occurred in 1965. At that time, over half the states forbade such marriages. And no, I don't think it should be illegal. It's still a man and a woman, even if they're opposite colors!
So we should leave everything to unelected judges? Are you high? At least let the d~bags we sent to dc represent us as a nation if you think our vote should not count.





I have no problem with Homosexuals! I give huge kudos to vermont for their public voting it through as a state. Don't try to shove things down peoples throat. Educate people tell them why they should vote for it. Not that some depotist judges are going to invoke their will upon the people of America!
The majority of Americans supported keeping slavery legal back in the day too. Should it have been? No. Was it? Yes. I'd have to say the same thing applies here. Should it be illegal? No. Could it be? Yes.





Then again, politicians don't always legislate what the majority wants, so who knows!
I can't really argue the other side of your point because I don't believe that equal rights, and especially denial of equal rights, of any person or group should be treated as a popularity (or unpopularity) contest. To say that some are ';less equal'; than others goes against the very essence of the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Interracial marriage is already legal because it is still a NORMAL relationship of a man and a woman. It is abnormal relationships that are high risk for disease or deformities that should be illegal for the sake of society.











homosexuals try anything don't they?
If we are a republic, then it can be argued that the reps must represent the wishes of the people. However, if we are a godly nation, then this inhibition to the freedoms of the people are not just.





Of course, white, black, green or pink, all kids born today will inherit close to 1mill in debt.





Check it out.





http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/arti鈥?/a>
It should be Unconstitutional to tell citizens who they can and can't marry. Yes, I also mean homosexuals.





People have to realize that freedom pertains to all US citizens.





Including citizens in the womb.
It's unconstitutional, therefore, not a state decision. However, a state could rule by majority that your beard is illegal.
To answer your question : NO, it should not be illegal.





Who are you to decide what is ';blatantly unfair';?


Is it blatantly unfair that people who pay no taxes deciding that the one who DO pay taxes do not pay enough? IS that ';fair';??
There is a higher moral authority than the majority vote...that is the moral authority of our Constitution.





If it is wrong, then it does not matter what the majority think--PERIOD
Majority rule is like mob rule...thankfully, we have a Constitution in place that keeps the mob from overextending it's influence.
Nope.


It's not the same. Most African-AMericans don't take too kindly to seeing the gay rights agenda compared to the civil rights struggle, by the way.
That is like asking, ';If the majority of Americans wanted Obama for President, should he be President?';
NOPE





Choosing a republican form of government instead of a direct democracy shows how much confidence our founding fathers had in people being able to make the right choice instead of the emotional one.
No. But the Christian right is the moral majority in America and if they decided it should be, then it would be.
Personally, I don't think it should be at all.





However, our country was designed to represent the interests of the people.
some things shouldn't be left up to the majority


the south would have had slavery start back up as late as the 1960s





so, to answer your question, NO!
No, like so many things these days, it's a personal issue and government has no business in it.
No.
nope, but then again what is right and what is wrong?
generally speaking, the majority are not always right. on different case studies, it has been proved that the average of individual opinions are the best. for example, we try different approaches in a maze, turning to wrong directions and then going back, and finally find our way out of maze. the average of the 100 persons who had tried the same maze, was much better than the best individuals. therefore what we do as democratic solutions for issues in our society might be a good approach. majority usually decides better than the individuals. e.g. Francis Galton found that the average of hundreds of people betting on weight of a cow, is very accurate, and none of individuals participating here could make such a guess.


but, this is not always true. there are many other case studies proving that sometimes the majority fails to choose the best. considering all these cases, it seems that the majority do better than individuals when each one decides him/herself; but when we individuals are so affected by others, and choose based on that, our average becomes worse than the individuals.


we all prefer to be part of a group, and therefore sometimes our own idea is in fact something implied by the society because we normally like to follow the group and it forms our opinions. some indicate that the following conditions should be respected if we expect the majority to be better than individuals:





- each individual member must have his/her own analysis and decide based on that,


- each member should have the right to decide individually,


- the members should not be concentrated to give them the chance to decide themselves,


- we should be able to define a measure which summarizes the individual votes and opinions etc.





this happens in maze test, but in case of our complicated societies, the above conditions are hard to find e.g. for the marriage you have asked, we can't say the majority will be right if they say yes or no. we are social beings.
The majority isn't always right. That's a fact.





A very easy example, the majority twice made a mistake voting for Bush.





The majority also believes in God while this is not even a shred of evidence God exists.





The majority can't decide on the gay ';issue';. A group can't discriminate and ordered another smaller group to adapt their own fake and biased values. It's not right
It would be a much better country if it were a simple majority rule, but that's not the way we're set up.





.