So Gay marriage failed again...

[M. Angel]

The Great Heat Miser

M. Angel

marriage is originally a religious term

You don't give a s**t about the original meaning of words. Don't hide behind this horse crap.

Quote:

That aside, the primary reason that I have been against gay marriage is the way that it has come around, not by the will of the people. I see the US as a country of majority rule, always has been, always will be. (Note, when I say majority, I mean majority opinion, not racial class or anything else along those lines.) I believe that whatever the majority of people vote in, that's the way things should be, and most people would agree on this. If you voted for Obama and he won the majority vote, like he did, then you wouldn't want McCain in office because a smaller group than the majority said they wanted him in.

This was somewhat better.

Although, it does ignore the fact that you're putting down an entire group of people simply because you feel like it.

As I said, the above "horse crap" was a subsection of a secondary reason for my opposition. I care about the term on its religious grounds and, as that directly relates, its original meaning.

To my primary reason, it all depends on how you view the world. My view in no way keeps people from being together, living together, doing whatever they want in bed together, it merely restricts the use of the term marriage to referring to a man and a woman. One could argue the same thing you are on the death penalty, or abortion or any other issue that has two sides. In every instance there is a winner and a loser to an issue. A group of people, regardless of the issue, will be put down.

[Requiem of the Exodus]

AngelofRelief

Requiem of the Exodus

How is it the homosexuality was the cause of the family unit breaking apart? Your story is sad (BAW), but all pity aside where are you getting it from?

To better explain how it broke my family apart I'll try to put it as simply as possible. This all took place three years ago. My youngest brother (eight at the time) was upset about the divorce, but seeing as how young he is he accepted her being gay rather quickly. The middle brother (thirteen at the time, very hormonal age) actually exploded when it happened; refused to talk to her, called her vulgar names, said he hated her, you name it. And for some reason my mom tried to get me to get him to calm down. Being the eldest (fifteen) I took a neutral position on it, somewhat, and acted civil around her although inside I despised everything about her. This actually threw me into a major battle with depression because of the mixed emotions I was feeling at the time, and the fact that I kept everything bottled up. As for my step-father, you can imagine that your wife leaving you for someone else, not to mention a woman, was a major blow to his ego. That and the fact that she, in essence, abandoned us, infuriated him beyond belief to the point where anytime her name came up he would slander it as much as humanly possible. (Mostly for her leaving us, and somewhat for her being gay. We were raised in a Christian household if that puts it in better perspective.)

The family unit, not yours. Your mom was irresponsible for doing that, but not every homosexual does things like that.

[Malee]

AngelofRelief

Requiem of the Exodus

How is it the homosexuality was the cause of the family unit breaking apart? Your story is sad (BAW), but all pity aside where are you getting it from?

To better explain how it broke my family apart I'll try to put it as simply as possible. This all took place three years ago. My youngest brother (eight at the time) was upset about the divorce, but seeing as how young he is he accepted her being gay rather quickly. The middle brother (thirteen at the time, very hormonal age) actually exploded when it happened; refused to talk to her, called her vulgar names, called her disgusting, a sin against humanity, said he hated her, you name it. And for some reason my mom tried to get me to get him to calm down. Being the eldest (fifteen) I took a neutral position on it, somewhat, and acted civil around her although inside I despised everything about her. This actually threw me into a major battle with depression because of the mixed emotions I was feeling at the time, and the fact that I kept everything bottled up. As a result of my terrible coping measures, I started a terrible chain of drinking and smoking which almost led to suicide at one point, although I'm not pleased to admit it. As for my step-father, you can imagine that your wife leaving you for someone else, not to mention a woman, was a major blow to his ego. That and the fact that she, in essence, abandoned us, infuriated him beyond belief to the point where anytime her name came up he would slander it as much as humanly possible. (Mostly for her leaving us, and somewhat for her being gay. We were raised in a Christian household if that puts it in better perspective.)

While sad, this sounds like a reaction to the divorce and a feeling of abandonment because the family is breaking apart. Many husbands (and wives) slander their ex's name whether their ex ends up with a man or a woman. It will always be a blow to the ego.

This is more a reason to hate the broken family, as opposed to a reason to hate gay marriage.

[Xeno Incognito]

AngelofRelief

Requiem of the Exodus

How is it the homosexuality was the cause of the family unit breaking apart? Your story is sad (BAW), but all pity aside where are you getting it from?

To better explain how it broke my family apart I'll try to put it as simply as possible. This all took place three years ago. My youngest brother (eight at the time) was upset about the divorce, but seeing as how young he is he accepted her being gay rather quickly. The middle brother (thirteen at the time, very hormonal age) actually exploded when it happened; refused to talk to her, called her vulgar names, said he hated her, you name it. And for some reason my mom tried to get me to get him to calm down. Being the eldest (fifteen) I took a neutral position on it, somewhat, and acted civil around her although inside I despised everything about her. This actually threw me into a major battle with depression because of the mixed emotions I was feeling at the time, and the fact that I kept everything bottled up. As for my step-father, you can imagine that your wife leaving you for someone else, not to mention a woman, was a major blow to his ego. That and the fact that she, in essence, abandoned us, infuriated him beyond belief to the point where anytime her name came up he would slander it as much as humanly possible. (Mostly for her leaving us, and somewhat for her being gay. We were raised in a Christian household if that puts it in better perspective.)

I can sympathize with your struggles but you need to put this into perspective:

Your mother was a repressed homosexual. Society, her upbringing, your stepfather, maybe even you- they, even unconsciously, pressured her to stay in the closet. So much so that she went against every natural instinct in her body and married a man.

If it wasn't for the anti-gay camp and heteronormative society directing her life, she would have been a happy, loved lesbian woman.

Being a lesbian wasn't your mother's "dream". It's not a vacation you take when you turn 50. It's not something you do for fun. The fact is, she was and always will be a lesbian (or maybe bisexual). She didn't just turn. She just was.

Your family's lack of support? Your internalized hate? You've just made it that much harder for her. You don't need to like it. You don't need to like her partners. You don't even have to agree with her decision.

But you still need to LOVE her. Because she is your mother, the one who raised you and gave you life. She is still the same person she was before she came out.

That being said, you need to realize that her repression is the fault of people like you and who think like you.

[The Great Heat Miser]

M. Angel

As I said, the above "horse crap" was a subsection of a secondary reason for my opposition. I care about the term on its religious grounds and, as that directly relates, its original meaning.

You should understand that, when you repeat yourself, I'm bound to repeat myself.

You don't care about original meaning. Not at all. This is nothing more than pure intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

To my primary reason, it all depends on how you view the world. My view in no way keeps people from being together, living together, doing whatever they want in bed together, it merely restricts the use of the term marriage to referring to a man and a woman. One could argue the same thing you are on the death penalty, or abortion or any other issue that has two sides. In every instance there is a winner and a loser to an issue.

This view makes no sense. It literally assumes that the word itself is the problem, when it's not. It's not that gays aren't being allowed to call their bonds a marriage, it's that they're not being allowed those god damn bonds at all. Even if you call it something different, it's going to be the same damn bond, and it's going to cause the same damn problems, because the problem isn't with the word, it's with the word's meaning.

You're acting like calling my day a 'good' day or a 'fine' day will actually make a difference, despite the fact that they're practically the same thing.

Quote:

A group of people, regardless of the issue, will be put down.

I think you have the idea that 'putting down' and 'losing the argument' are one in the same. That idea has absolutely no grounding in reality.

If you have a man trying to buy a neighborhood so he can tear it down and build a super-mall, either one of two things will happen: The man will be able to do so, or the man won't be able to do so. If he is allowed to, hundreds of people are forced onto the streets to desperately search for a new home or to simply die on the streets. If he's not allowed to, he simply can't build the super-mall.

One side simply doesn't gain. The other loses practically everything they have.

Do you understand the difference? Yes, or no?

[M. Angel]

Xeno Incognito

M. Angel

A portion of this was buried in one of the earlier pages, but one of the secondary reasons that I am personally against it is that marriage is originally a religious term that has been modified over the years to cover any couple that wants to stay together for life, whether they be religious or not.

Wasn't marriage originally a non-religious agreement of partnership between two people? Why do people keep saying it was originally a religious concept? And even then, this is about the LEGAL benefits of marriage, and as GSK said, there are religions that will marry gays so the topic is irrelevant.

Quote:

That aside, the primary reason that I have been against gay marriage is the way that it has come around, not by the will of the people. I see the US as a country of majority rule, always has been, always will be. (Note, when I say majority, I mean majority opinion, not racial class or anything else along those lines.) I believe that whatever the majority of people vote in, that's the way things should be, and most people would agree on this. If you voted for Obama and he won the majority vote, like he did, then you wouldn't want McCain in office because a smaller group than the majority said they wanted him in.

There are always exceptions. See: 2000 election.

And I don't believe in the tyranny of the majority. Frankly, I'm not even sure I can keep believing in a country where minorities can be treated like crap because it's accepted by the majority.

Quote:

Hence why I created the thread. I believe that the movement is hurting itself, but I'm curious as to what others believe. Since I also believe that change should be enacted by the people, if the movement is hurting itself then the movement as a whole also loses my respect.

Where have you been? The movement has been busting its a** trying to enact change. This sham of a vote has just proven that even the worst campaign from the opposition will still win because it feeds into fear and ignorance.

I'll just number these by quote to make it easier.

1) I'm not referring to the concept, I'm referring to the term, marriage. I believe that most people are when they bring up that argument, if they aren't then I weep for them. As to religions that will marry homosexuals they are few in comparative to the whole.

2)Well there are always small exceptions, but as a whole the majority usually comes out on top.

Now when you say minorities, I'd like you to specify your meaning. I normally use the term as above with minority opinions. I don't know if you're referring to political minorities, racial minorities, religious minorities, or all of the above. If all the above, and as such the minority opinion as per my definition, then I have to say that's just the way it is. The majority opinion always rules in a democratic society.

3)Well, as mentioned in the OP, here is a group that has the money, airwaves, manpower, everything that it needs for a good campaign. Yet they fail. Under circumstances where little information is available, I'd agree that fear played a factor, however, the CA court case after prop 8 passed, which anyone can access the footage, clearly showed the incompetence of the movement. They tripped over themselves, couldn't stay on topic, didn't answer the questions presented to them, it was a mess. This is where I've been, following the case bit by bit as it unfolds.

[Torrent_Of_Octane]

M. Angel

Torrent_Of_Octane

JayDi Blaze

Torrent_Of_Octane

AngelofRelief

Although I personally am not a fan of Gay Marriage, as a result of homosexuality breaking apart my family, I do think that most of you need to remember a few things.
1. The generation that voted "no" was an older generation from the 50's-60's, aka Baby Boomers, and have grown up to be raised quite religiously.
2. Homosexuality is becoming more acceptable by societies standards, thus it will happen eventually.
3. The "Baby Boom" generation is getting progressively older(obviously) and will probably be gone within, roughly, 20-30 years.
4. After they are gone, or once the majority of our generation comes of age, gay marriage will pass. I would say that it will pass within the next 20 years at least.

Bullshit. Please show proof of age and the way people vote are related. I'm 21 and I'm against gay marriage. I know old 60 somethings that are for gay marriage.

I'm scared that you know people that old well enough to know that.

Is there something wrong with having a philosophy professor well into the age of 60, or at least high 50s, to publicly say in class that he supports gay marriage?

Good evening, Octane. I'd just like to say that I disapprove of people calling you a troll instead of using logic to debate your positions.

Thanks. I appreciate it. People should in general judge a person by the content of what they say isntead of their name. Hate using cliches, but "dont judge a book by its cover".

[AngelofRelief]

Torrent_Of_Octane

AngelofRelief

The_Broken_Angel_Of_Time

Torrent_Of_Octane

AngelofRelief

Although I personally am not a fan of Gay Marriage, as a result of homosexuality breaking apart my family, I do think that most of you need to remember a few things.

1. The generation that voted "no" was an older generation from the 50's-60's, aka Baby Boomers, and have grown up to be raised quite religiously.
2. Homosexuality is becoming more acceptable by societies standards, thus it will happen eventually.
3. The "Baby Boom" generation is getting progressively older(obviously) and will probably be gone within, roughly, 20-30 years.
4. After they are gone, or once the majority of our generation comes of age, gay marriage will pass. I would say that it will pass within the next 20 years at least.

Bullshit. Please show proof of age and the way people vote are related. I'm 21 and I'm against gay marriage. I know old 60 somethings that are for gay marriage.

My grandma just turned 60 and she's for gay marriage. My friend who is... 16 is against gay marriage. So, I agree with Octane.

Apparently you two fail to see the correlation in the generation gaps. I did not say that everyone was that way, by all means I don't support gay marriage, however to deny that it will happen would simply be denying the inevitable truth. Take Civil Rights; originally such a thought was unheard of and considered blasphemous, however in our day and age equality among races has become more and more socially acceptable. Are there still racists and bigots? By all means yes, however most of us have progressed past that and see each other as equal.

Appeal to history and incorrect comparesent. First off, race and homosexuality cannot be compared as you have. Sexual deviency cannot be compared to race. The second is just because it happened before is not a guarantee that it will happen again.

AngelofRelief

Now the fact that I have to explain the "baby boomer" situation is just downright despicable, shame on the both of you for not knowing your history. It is not news that the percentage of religious people back in the day was much higher than it is now, these people were raised on hard-lined morals and developed a strong sense of right and wrong.

You act like religion was the only reason people are against gay marriage. Again, its up to you to provide the sources of your claim of two thing.
1. Percentage of religious people are higher in the past than now.
2. Percentage of non-religious anti-gay voter ratio against religious anti-gay voter.
3. Then cross examine proportionally (very important that its a proportion figure) both of the source to come up with an analysis of your claim. However I strongly suspect you just pulled that statement out of your a** without validating it just because "it seems like so".

AngelofRelief

Many of these people were hold extremely Christian morals and as such are not quite as tolerant of homosexuality.

Sure many do, but again you have ignored non-religious and non-christian voters that is also against homosexuality. I for example was not raised Christian, but I'm still against gay marriage.

AngelofRelief

Also note that the "Baby Boom" was started do to a fear of another world war and thus the people felt the need to populate the Earth as much as possible.

Hoo, boy... You know what I'm going to ask right now... because I heard a very different story regarding this.

AngelofRelief

Now take our generation, we find that more and more people in our generation are not necessarily brought up to believe that homosexuality is wrong, thus many will either find it acceptable, or they have a "who gives a s**t" mentality. Let us also not forget that the older generation outnumbers ours by the masses.

One more thing, you're entire argument rests on several fallacies. You're assuming that the way people are raised are the way they will vote. You're assuming that the older population vote a certain way because of religion. On the other side, you're doing the exact same thing. You're assuming that the younger population will vote a certain way due to a lack of religious values.

Again, where are you getting these claims from?

AngelofRelief

So let me put it into simple perspective for you; once many of the hard-lined Christian "baby boomers" have started to pass away, our generation will rise up and will find homosexuality either "socially acceptable" or they'll just give them their rights to make them all shut the ******** up. Now I hear what you're saying, I don't like homosexuality either, but if you look at it from a theoretical perspective and use a little something called "logic" and "analysis," you will find that gay marriage in itself is inevitable. And like I said before; I don't like gay marriage, repeat DO NOT LIKE gay marriage (although with no bias to people that are so), but cannot deny the facts that have been laid out before me.

I have pointed out serveral times where you're premises have lacked solid backing. Sure, you made a logical argument, but you're argument is not sound due to the fact that you rest on several logical fallacies and unvarifiable assumptions.

Cite, cite, cite. Statistics, statistics, statistics. If I honestly had the time or, let alone, an actual reason to copy and paste such information then I would. However the fact that you're knit-picking my arguement, and for some reason can't see a correlation in trends, leads me to the conclusion that you can't use deductive reasoning to figure this out on your own. So I'll put it simply; go back in time, oh say, one hundred years and ask yourself this, "in a time when scientific knowledge hasn't yet posed a serious threat to religion, are the people as accepting of homosexuality as they will be now." If you answered yes, then you are a lost cause. Homosexuality was demonized in the past due mostly to the fact that religious institutions stated that it was immoral, science had not yet played a part. If you compare science to how it was back in the day, you will find that it was almost nowhere close to providing a "logical" explanation other than a diety forming all of humanity. Today, science is the main reason why so many people turn their backs on religion. Religion typically teaches that homosexuality is downright wrong, and back then almost nobody argued that case. However, now science is gaining more and more influence while also making it harder for people to believe in their faith. And if you haven't been clued in yet, atheists are typically more accepting of homosexuality because they don't have a religious institution telling them it is wrong. I'm not saying that all people feel this way, however you are constantly denying the fact that society progresses as it sees fit. Look at Europe, they've become socially accepting of homosexuality, the Islam states haven't because they are ruled by religion and believe homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. (Yes I'm aware the Islam states are in the middle east, I was doing a compare and contrast, before you knit-pick at that.) Europe, and America are not run by religion, therefore at some point in time homosexuals will be allowed to wed. I personally don't want to see it happen, but you are denying an inevitable fate that will eventually come to fruition.

[AngelofRelief]

Xeno Incognito

AngelofRelief

Requiem of the Exodus

How is it the homosexuality was the cause of the family unit breaking apart? Your story is sad (BAW), but all pity aside where are you getting it from?

To better explain how it broke my family apart I'll try to put it as simply as possible. This all took place three years ago. My youngest brother (eight at the time) was upset about the divorce, but seeing as how young he is he accepted her being gay rather quickly. The middle brother (thirteen at the time, very hormonal age) actually exploded when it happened; refused to talk to her, called her vulgar names, said he hated her, you name it. And for some reason my mom tried to get me to get him to calm down. Being the eldest (fifteen) I took a neutral position on it, somewhat, and acted civil around her although inside I despised everything about her. This actually threw me into a major battle with depression because of the mixed emotions I was feeling at the time, and the fact that I kept everything bottled up. As for my step-father, you can imagine that your wife leaving you for someone else, not to mention a woman, was a major blow to his ego. That and the fact that she, in essence, abandoned us, infuriated him beyond belief to the point where anytime her name came up he would slander it as much as humanly possible. (Mostly for her leaving us, and somewhat for her being gay. We were raised in a Christian household if that puts it in better perspective.)

I can sympathize with your struggles but you need to put this into perspective:

Your mother was a repressed homosexual. Society, her upbringing, your stepfather, maybe even you- they, even unconsciously, pressured her to stay in the closet. So much so that she went against every natural instinct in her body and married a man.

If it wasn't for the anti-gay camp and heteronormative society directing her life, she would have been a happy, loved lesbian woman.

Being a lesbian wasn't your mother's "dream". It's not a vacation you take when you turn 50. It's not something you do for fun. The fact is, she was and always will be a lesbian (or maybe bisexual). She didn't just turn. She just was.

Your family's lack of support? Your internalized hate? You've just made it that much harder for her. You don't need to like it. You don't need to like her partners. You don't even have to agree with her decision.

But you still need to LOVE her. Because she is your mother, the one who raised you and gave you life. She is still the same person she was before she came out.

That being said, you need to realize that her repression is the fault of people like you and who think like you.

While I can see what you're saying, but your arguement is terribly flawed in that you don't know my mother. I do admit that using the term "dream" was a bit far-fetched and created some confusion, however she had no previous desire to be homosexual. In fact she was raised Catholic and hated homosexuals, so at no point in time was she a "supressed homosexual." She was the one that taught us that being homosexual was wrong, so guess how my family reacted when she did the exact opposite of what she preached. Tell me how to support a mother that abandons her children, tell me how to console a thirteen year old brother and explain to him why she left. This was not the result of us suppressing her, it was the result of her just saying one day, "I want to be gay."

I'm sorry if I came off as harsh, however when you point the finger from the outside without knowing the full details of the situation, and blame me and my family for her abandoning us, then you have crossed a very treacherous line.

[tererun3]

Hahahaha Good try.

Thee is a small problem the OP overlooks. This is just the beginning of the gay marriage movement. Every day it is gaining momentum and moving forward. You are not winning these fights by large margins anymore, and the old and hateful people are dying off and the young people don't fall for the crap as much. Yes, there may have been a popular loss this year, but in ten years you are going to be on the losing side. So, cheer all you want now homophobes, the change is coming, and you cannot stop it.

You are losing and our tide is rising.

[Methcalarjalope]

It has now failed 31 for 31 wherever states put it to the vote. Maine is a bastion of progressive liberalism but the folks are crusty old Yankees who don't want anyone tellling them how to define marriage.

[Xeno Incognito]

M. Angel

Xeno Incognito

M. Angel

A portion of this was buried in one of the earlier pages, but one of the secondary reasons that I am personally against it is that marriage is originally a religious term that has been modified over the years to cover any couple that wants to stay together for life, whether they be religious or not.

Wasn't marriage originally a non-religious agreement of partnership between two people? Why do people keep saying it was originally a religious concept? And even then, this is about the LEGAL benefits of marriage, and as GSK said, there are religions that will marry gays so the topic is irrelevant.

Quote:

That aside, the primary reason that I have been against gay marriage is the way that it has come around, not by the will of the people. I see the US as a country of majority rule, always has been, always will be. (Note, when I say majority, I mean majority opinion, not racial class or anything else along those lines.) I believe that whatever the majority of people vote in, that's the way things should be, and most people would agree on this. If you voted for Obama and he won the majority vote, like he did, then you wouldn't want McCain in office because a smaller group than the majority said they wanted him in.

There are always exceptions. See: 2000 election.

And I don't believe in the tyranny of the majority. Frankly, I'm not even sure I can keep believing in a country where minorities can be treated like crap because it's accepted by the majority.

Quote:

Hence why I created the thread. I believe that the movement is hurting itself, but I'm curious as to what others believe. Since I also believe that change should be enacted by the people, if the movement is hurting itself then the movement as a whole also loses my respect.

Where have you been? The movement has been busting its a** trying to enact change. This sham of a vote has just proven that even the worst campaign from the opposition will still win because it feeds into fear and ignorance.

I'll just number these by quote to make it easier.

1) I'm not referring to the concept, I'm referring to the term, marriage. I believe that most people are when they bring up that argument, if they aren't then I weep for them. As to religions that will marry homosexuals they are few in comparative to the whole.

2)Well there are always small exceptions, but as a whole the majority usually comes out on top.

Now when you say minorities, I'd like you to specify your meaning. I normally use the term as above with minority opinions. I don't know if you're referring to political minorities, racial minorities, religious minorities, or all of the above. If all the above, and as such the minority opinion as per my definition, then I have to say that's just the way it is. The majority opinion always rules in a democratic society.

3)Well, as mentioned in the OP, here is a group that has the money, airwaves, manpower, everything that it needs for a good campaign. Yet they fail. Under circumstances where little information is available, I'd agree that fear played a factor, however, the CA court case after prop 8 passed, which anyone can access the footage, clearly showed the incompetence of the movement. They tripped over themselves, couldn't stay on topic, didn't answer the questions presented to them, it was a mess. This is where I've been, following the case bit by bit as it unfolds.

1. I still need proof that it is a religious term, but in order to prove that you'd need define which specific religions state it as such. And by doing so, you've invalidated the point because, again, there are religions that will marry same-sex couples. It doesn't matter how few there are.

2. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And yes, I'm referring to majority opinion. Are you aware of what type of government America runs with? We are not a direct democracy. We're a representative republic. Meaning, we elect representatives to act in what they believe is the best interest of the constituents. The average American is either apathetic or an ignorant dumbass. And the representatives do not always follow the majority opinion. They usually just vote with whichever side hired the best lobbyists.

My point is that you're grossly misinformed if you think the political system is as simple as you say it is. We can make exceptions without it harming the delicate fabric of the majority, especially in this case, where changing the definition of marriage would be harming NOBODY.

3. And had you seen the extremely deceitful ad campaigns put out by Yes on 8? They fed the public lies by telling them that voting for gay marriage would force schools to teach children homosexuality (which wouldn't be negative in any way even if it was true), that by changing the definition gay marriage "threaten" their families (which are s**t-all to begin with if you need another person's relationship to define yours).

It worked because they appealed to their target audience: ignorant, easily influenced, irrational TV-watchers who take Fox News as gospel truth.

[Methcalarjalope]

tererun3

Yes, there may have been a popular loss this year, but in ten years you are going to be on the losing side.

I agree with this portion of tererun3's perspective.

[Methcalarjalope]

Quote:

Wasn't marriage originally a non-religious agreement of partnership between two people? Why do people keep saying it was originally a religious concept? And even then, this is about the LEGAL benefits of marriage, and as GSK said, there are religions that will marry gays so the topic is irrelevant.

Monogamy dates to the Roman laws and Christianity which equated it to 1:1 ration man to woman. Matrimony means, "the making of a mother."

[AstroFemme]

It makes me sad that Christians are so adamant about denying rights to people based on religious beliefs. Reminds me of the same thing that happened during the legalization of interracial marriages.