If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Lawyer defending VA gay marriage ban: "Pocahontas married John Rolfe, therefore restricting marriage to male-female couples is constitutional"   (slate.com) divider line 96
    More: Amusing, Pocahontas, opponents of same-sex marriage, constitutions, Pocahontas married, couples, Circuit in Richmond, interracial marriages  
•       •       •

1754 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2014 at 3:42 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-16 02:32:35 PM
The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey
 
2014-05-16 02:38:58 PM
The sad thing is that these types of illogical arguments make perfect sense to anti-gay conservatives.

You cant reason with them.
 
2014-05-16 02:46:19 PM
I can only imagine the wondrous collection of straws this lawyer has at his home, given the extreme proficiency at grasping them on display here.
 
2014-05-16 02:47:46 PM

Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey


Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!
 
2014-05-16 02:50:13 PM
This should be an entertaining thread.
 
2014-05-16 02:52:36 PM
x111.com
 
2014-05-16 03:00:14 PM

ginandbacon: Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey

Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!


Citation
 
2014-05-16 03:04:06 PM

Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey


www.disneystoryoriginspodcast.com
Have you ever heard a white guy called a coon?
Or asked the grinning honkey why he grins?
Can you gather all the voices of the state congress?
Can you legislate the color of my skin?
Can you legislate my off-caucasian skin?
 
2014-05-16 03:04:06 PM
Everyone knows that gay marriage is permissible because the ancient Greeks were sodomites.  Obviously that takes precedence over the 17th century marriage of a white man to a Native American.

Virginia logic slap!
 
2014-05-16 03:04:23 PM
Is it OK to mock these people despite their obvious mental disabilities?
 
2014-05-16 03:04:51 PM

ginandbacon: Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey

Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!


Check out anti-miscegenation laws on Wiki.

Though from what they have, the first laws in VA were passed in 1691, and made it illegal for whites to marry anyone who was non-white.

Oh, and VA also had this beauty....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

And, VA's stupidity resulted in Loving v Virginia, which caused the Supreme Court to strike down all anti-miscegenation laws in the US.
 
2014-05-16 03:08:21 PM

ginandbacon: Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey

Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!


Here's a cite

I mangled it slightly however so in the interests of accuracy:
The law in question was the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" and it was part of a package of Eugenics -based laws passed by the legislature at the time,  Another law passed at the same time, the VA sterilization act, was the one that was UPHELD in   Buck v. Bell which had the famous quote "3 generations of morons is enough" (if only)

There was indeed a section of the Racial integrity law colliquially called "the Pocahontas Exception"   but the actual text is slightly different than I remember:Basically it was a big thing in VA high society, particularly if you were of OLD Virginia blood to make up a claim of descent from Pocahontas.   Which would have been awkward after the Racial Integrity Act, so rather than force all those people to call BS on those claims they just made anybody with 1/16 or less indian blood legally "white" for purposes of the act.   So basically as long as any race mixing was either utterly fanciful or confined to the colonial period it was fine, but any time after that it was verboten
 
2014-05-16 03:08:41 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Is it OK to mock these people despite their obvious mental disabilities?


If you check out VA's interest in the eugenics movement in the '20s, it looks like the majority of its legislators would have been involuntarily sterilized due to their feeblemindedness.
 
2014-05-16 03:09:48 PM

FirstNationalBastard: ginandbacon: Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey

Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!

Check out anti-miscegenation laws on Wiki.

Though from what they have, the first laws in VA were passed in 1691, and made it illegal for whites to marry anyone who was non-white.

Oh, and VA also had this beauty....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

And, VA's stupidity resulted in Loving v Virginia, which caused the Supreme Court to strike down all anti-miscegenation laws in the US.


For I am FFV, the first family
In the sovereign colony of Virginia
Yes I am FFV, the oldest family
in the oldest colony in America
 
2014-05-16 03:20:21 PM
It's a bad argument but you know who doesn't care and would vote on behalf of his special interests?

img.wonkette.com

Lucky it's not before him.
 
2014-05-16 03:21:57 PM
No, he's cool with it.


24.media.tumblr.com

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-16 03:32:32 PM

SphericalTime: Everyone knows that gay marriage is permissible because the ancient Greeks were sodomites.  Obviously that takes precedence over the 17th century marriage of a white man to a Native American.

Virginia logic slap!


No! Everything was reset with ... Jaysus. Jesus changed it all and made gay marriages wrong because it says so in the Old Testament. So everything before Jesus was because they lacked Jesus and everything after Jesus is because of Jesus and the Old Testament, which was written before Jesus.

/head is spinning
 
2014-05-16 03:44:43 PM

Magorn: The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.


yeah but pocahontas wasn't a descendent of pocahontas
 
2014-05-16 03:47:44 PM
So Michigan had "gay people adopting kids makes those children losers", Kentucky had "It's bad for the economy," and now Virginia has Pocahontas.

How much dumber can these arguments get?
 
2014-05-16 03:48:14 PM

sprawl15: Magorn: The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.

yeah but pocahontas wasn't a descendent of pocahontas


Mind blown.
 
2014-05-16 03:49:00 PM

WI241TH: So Michigan had "gay people adopting kids makes those children losers", Kentucky had "It's bad for the economy," and now Virginia has Pocahontas.

How much dumber can these arguments get?


Are they in control? Yes? They aren't dumb. The electorate is.
 
2014-05-16 03:49:02 PM

vernonFL: The sad thing is that these types of illogical arguments make perfect sense to anti-gay conservatives.

You cant reason with them.


It's not even worth trying. I'd rather have a buffalo take a diarrhea dump in my ear.
 
2014-05-16 03:51:32 PM
I like the other article up on the site about PA's non-attempt to fight for their same sex marriage ban.

Basically "It doesn't matter if our rationalizations are bullshiat, we're allowed to make and enforce them".
 
2014-05-16 03:52:03 PM
Now, what would be really fun is if anybody in the couples challenging the anti-gay marriage law could trace their ancestry back to Pocahontas!
 
2014-05-16 03:52:53 PM

Magorn: it was part of a package of Eugenics -based laws


The laws that some guy in Germany later praised and used as a basis for his "permanent" "fixes"?
 
2014-05-16 03:53:27 PM
This guy needs to develop a painful rectal itch.
 
2014-05-16 03:53:55 PM
Christ why not just walk into court in assless chaps and confess you got nothing?
 
2014-05-16 03:56:53 PM
So what you're saying is, if we can find any historical evidence of two men or women marrying prior to the adoption of the Constitution, that was not challenged by anyone at the time, then gay marriage is legal and OK?
 
2014-05-16 03:57:43 PM

WI241TH: So Michigan had "gay people adopting kids makes those children losers", Kentucky had "It's bad for the economy," and now Virginia has Pocahontas.

How much dumber can these arguments get?


With each one being beaten in court, they will dig deeper and derper until we reach the singularity.  Reasoning will be tetrahedral, logic will be bent into non-linear and non-sequential streams of irrelevant and unconnected ideas. No one will save our brain cells when that happens.
 
2014-05-16 04:00:11 PM
It did have the virtue of never having been tried before, so that's something.
 
2014-05-16 04:00:12 PM

Theaetetus: ginandbacon: Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey

Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!

Citation


Wow.

The Racial Integrity Act was subject to the "Pocahontas exception"-since many influential "First Families of Virginia" (FFV) claimed descent from Pocahontas, a daughter of the Powhatan, the legislature declared that a person could be considered white even if he or she had as much as one-sixteenth Indian ancestry.


Thomas Pepsironemeh Rolfe (January 30, 1615 - 1680) was the only child of Pocahontas by her English husband, John Rolfe.

Thomas married Elizabeth Washington in September 1632 at St James's Church in Clerkenwell and they had a daughter named Anne Rolfe in 1633. Elizabeth died shortly after Anne's birth. Anne Rolfe married Peter Elwin (Elwyn) and through that line many people claim descent from Pocahontas and John Rolfe.
---

1924 - 1615 = 309

/ 20

15.45 generations.  1/16.

Wow.
 
2014-05-16 04:02:07 PM

GoodyearPimp: Magorn: it was part of a package of Eugenics -based laws

The laws that some guy in Germany later praised and used as a basis for his "permanent" "fixes"?


Those are them.  My Son recently  had a DBQ for his AP us History Prep that included an essay on  the incredibly American origins of the Eugenics movement that culminated with the policies of the third Reich.  It was pretty eye-opening to me and I thought I knew much of this stuff before.

The most telling of all was a congratulatory telegram from one prominent eugenics advocate sent to the head of the US' leading Eugenics institute  telling him that the advocate was visiting Germany :

 California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe to a colleague:

'You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people.'

I'd like to think  that the recipient of that telegram had it clutched in his hand when he later took his own life, but I doubt it
 
2014-05-16 04:02:28 PM
Making courtroom arguments using fine legal points based on case law and precedent makes this guy a lawyer, not an ignorant bigot.

Supporting same-sex marriage bans makes him an ignorant bigot.
 
2014-05-16 04:03:45 PM

jayhawk88: So what you're saying is, if we can find any historical evidence of two men or women marrying prior to the adoption of the Constitution, that was not challenged by anyone at the time, then gay marriage is legal and OK?


Pocahontas' story is relevant only in the sense that it has some legal history in VA with regards to anti-miscegenation laws, and the lawyer saw this as a possible refutation of "we have evidence that interracial marriage was celebrated before anti-miscegenation laws, and so there's a historical precedent for it that isn't present for gay marriage, thereby defeating the parallel between gay marriage and interracial marriage drawn by opponents of the ban."

TFA did a good job of shooting it full of holes, but the example isn't completely out of left field.
 
2014-05-16 04:05:32 PM
I realize this is a bit apples-and-oranges, but this is the same part of Virginia that declared that non-Christian prayers weren't welcome in the Commonwealth's halls of government.

Also near Alleged Human Eric Cantor's home district (the Richmond suburbs), which is - quite coincidentally, I'm sure - well-known as a gay-friendly area (Richmond in general was a "safe place" for gays in the 60s and since).
 
2014-05-16 04:06:10 PM
I'd like to point out that it isn't the Commonwealth defending the law. Our AG declined that invitation.
 
2014-05-16 04:06:20 PM

Cletus C.: Making courtroom arguments using fine legal points based on case law and precedent makes this guy a lawyer, not an ignorant bigot.

Supporting same-sex marriage bans makes him an ignorant bigot.


Actually, it's cute you think grasping for straws constitutes "using fine legal points based on (lulz) case law and precedent."
 
2014-05-16 04:07:39 PM
Does this mean white men can only marry native american women?
 
2014-05-16 04:10:19 PM

LarryDan43: Does this mean white men can only marry native american women?


It worked out well in Mexico. It utterly blew up their attempt at a caste system.
 
2014-05-16 04:11:35 PM

Magorn: ginandbacon: Magorn: The author missed one more important reason this argument is a massive fail:  The anti-miscegenation statute in question prohibited white people from native Americans, unless the native american in question could prove descent from Pocahontas.   I'm not joking, that's in the actual text of the law.   So basically the marriage of Rofle and Pocahontas was okay only because she was legally made an honorary whitey

Are you serious? Do you have a citation for that? I'd love to see it. The things I learn on Fark...

And hoo boy is this one a real doozy in a field of very crazy arguments against marriage equality!

Here's a cite

I mangled it slightly however so in the interests of accuracy:
The law in question was the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" and it was part of a package of Eugenics -based laws passed by the legislature at the time,  Another law passed at the same time, the VA sterilization act, was the one that was UPHELD in   Buck v. Bell which had the famous quote "3 generations of morons is enough" (if only)

There was indeed a section of the Racial integrity law colliquially called "the Pocahontas Exception"   but the actual text is slightly different than I remember:Basically it was a big thing in VA high society, particularly if you were of OLD Virginia blood to make up a claim of descent from Pocahontas.   Which would have been awkward after the Racial Integrity Act, so rather than force all those people to call BS on those claims they just made anybody with 1/16 or less indian blood legally "white" for purposes of the act.   So basically as long as any race mixing was either utterly fanciful or confined to the colonial period it was fine, but any time after that it was verboten


That was an awesome read.  Thanks for that.
 
2014-05-16 04:11:51 PM

WI241TH: So Michigan had "gay people adopting kids makes those children losers", Kentucky had "It's bad for the economy," and now Virginia has Pocahontas.

How much dumber can these arguments get?


Is that a challenge?
 
2014-05-16 04:14:04 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I like the other article up on the site about PA's non-attempt to fight for their same sex marriage ban.

Basically "It doesn't matter if our rationalizations are bullshiat, we're allowed to make and enforce them".


Not only that, the State's attorney seems to think the State can deny rights to a group and it's up to the group to show that they should have them, not that the State must show compelling reasons to deny them.  That lawyer's law school sucks, or he's tanking the case on purpose.
 
2014-05-16 04:15:35 PM
Umm... wasn't his name John Smith?
 
2014-05-16 04:16:04 PM

whidbey: Cletus C.: Making courtroom arguments using fine legal points based on case law and precedent makes this guy a lawyer, not an ignorant bigot.

Supporting same-sex marriage bans makes him an ignorant bigot.

Actually, it's cute you think grasping for straws constitutes "using fine legal points based on (lulz) case law and precedent."


If you read TFA, you can see how his argument was formed.

Judge Roger Gregory jumped in and very sternly said "Same thing was true in Loving. Nobody would have considered interracial marriages in Virginia in the 1920s/30s [to be deeply rooted]."

To which he responded:

"There is a history, prior to the Jim Crow era laws, the anti-miscegenation laws. The idea of interracial marriage was not prohibited. It still fit within the fundamental right of marriage, the idea of a man-woman marriage. Before Virginia passed those affirmative anti-miscegenation laws, it might not have been the social norm, but people certainly could have married, and indeed did marry, across racial lines. Pocahontas married John Rolfe in the early 1600s and their marriage wasn't declared unconstitutional."
 
2014-05-16 04:18:00 PM

Cletus C.: whidbey: Cletus C.: Making courtroom arguments using fine legal points based on case law and precedent makes this guy a lawyer, not an ignorant bigot.

Supporting same-sex marriage bans makes him an ignorant bigot.

Actually, it's cute you think grasping for straws constitutes "using fine legal points based on (lulz) case law and precedent."

If you read TFA, you can see how his argument was formed.

Judge Roger Gregory jumped in and very sternly said "Same thing was true in Loving. Nobody would have considered interracial marriages in Virginia in the 1920s/30s [to be deeply rooted]."

To which he responded:

"There is a history, prior to the Jim Crow era laws, the anti-miscegenation laws. The idea of interracial marriage was not prohibited. It still fit within the fundamental right of marriage, the idea of a man-woman marriage. Before Virginia passed those affirmative anti-miscegenation laws, it might not have been the social norm, but people certainly could have married, and indeed did marry, across racial lines. Pocahontas married John Rolfe in the early 1600s and their marriage wasn't declared unconstitutional."


I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic (not likely) or that you really think this ridiculous argument has any merit. Reaching that far back before the US to make your bigoted anti-same sex marriage case deserves serious condemnation.
 
2014-05-16 04:19:45 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Is it OK to mock these people despite their obvious mental disabilities?


It's ok to mock them because they don't have mental disabilities -- they are being willfully stupid despite having fully functional intellectual capacity.   Mock away.
 
2014-05-16 04:20:20 PM

mayIFark: Umm... wasn't his name John Smith?


Only in the Disney version of history.
 
2014-05-16 04:21:22 PM
Can you herp with all the derp of the wind?
 
2014-05-16 04:22:02 PM
Didn't some Native American tribes highly value homosexuals?  Did they allow them to marry?  Were any of those tribes in Virginia?  As long as we're looking at pre-US times for precedent we ought to be able to look at everybody who lived in Virginia then, not just European colonists, otherwise that would be racist.
 
2014-05-16 04:22:30 PM

mayIFark: Umm... wasn't his name John Smith?


From Anytown, USA?
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report