In my opinion, much of what is wrong with our country today has to do with interpretations. And actually they aren't really interpretations. In many cases these are things that are just made up in order to fit a particular agenda.<quoted text>
.Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or other reasons, this doesnt lessen the fact that it is still a basic civil right.
There are plenty of examples. Let's go back to the beginning. James Madison is credited as the main author of the US Constitution. Some refer to him as the "Father of the Constitution". He's one of the authors of "The Federalist" which is a primer for the constitution and was written to explain the constitution to those who were going to vote to ratify or not. Given that, who could me more familiar with the original intent? The answer is probably no one.
Fast forward. James Madison is the fourth President of the United States and is presented with a bill for signature. The bill is a proposal for the funding of roads and canals by the federal government. He vetoed that bill saying that he could find nothing in the Constitution that allowed it.( http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.... ) Now look at where we are today. Can you imagine the veto of a public works bill on similar grounds? Of course not. We are where we where we are because of interpretations. Those interpretations that allow for the FHWA, the US Interstate system.... directly contradict the man credited as being the main author of the law of the land. Interpretations by those with an agenda make it that way. Is it right? No, but it's certainly easier than amending the constitution in the manner that the framers designed though.
I believe in reading the words as written and not trying to interpret using something akin to "The Six Degrees of Kevin bacon" in order to come to a conclusion that I find palatable. Loving v Virginia is clearly a case about heterosexual mixed race marriage. Those are the words written in the decision. Can you cite anything, anywhere that would indicate that same-sex marriage(a union based not on physiological differences but sexual preference) was ever contemplated or inferred in any way, shape or form by the SCOTUS in deciding Loving v Virginia? There is no evidence of that. Just "The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" interpretation process by those who favor same sex marriage.
The basis of my opinion about why Loving v Virginia is not relevant is this.
Being black is physiological. Being white is physiological. I can verify ethnicity with genetic testing.
Homosexuality is a sexual preference much more like a mother wanting to marry her son than a black woman(Mildred Loving) wanting to be married to a white man.
"Because the courts have determined that certain marriages were prohibited due to medical or OTHER REASONS, this doesnt lessen the fact that it is still a basic civil right
Actually, if a right can be abridged then it is not a universal right is it? It seems to me that you are saying that rights may be given or exempted depending on who is allowed to draw the line. Your interpretation of Loving v Virginia is just the tool that you use to justify where you want to draw the line. I never ceded the right to draw that line to anyone. Doesn't that interfere with my rights then?