Steven Litvintchouk <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in 
news:Uc8Zb.11317$W74.3538@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> 
> 
> Ian S. wrote:
> 
>> "Steven Litvintchouk" <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> news:yN5Zb.11080$W74.3207@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> 
>>>
>>>Ian S. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"John Wesley Asquith" <chillicothe@briar.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:f08830pciqk2ti5tm0rt93fdgvo2hpvofa@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>George Bush is troubled by the courts not acting on gay marriage.
>>>>>Says "people should decide the issue, not the courts."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In the late 1960's the vast majority of the people believed that
>>>>inter-racial marriage was wrong. So does Bush believe the USSC should
>> 
>> not
>> 
>>>>have struck down the anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia? I
>> 
>> wish
>> 
>>>>someone had asked him that.
>>>
>>>That is a bad analogy.
>> 
>> 
>> No, it is an excellent analogy. At the time of Loving v Virginia, public
>> opinion supported the anti-miscegenation laws and it was only through 
the
>> intervention of the courts that they were done away with. Bush said
>> yesterday that the issue of gay marriage should be up to the people to
>> decide, not the courts. Why would it be any different for the
>> anti-miscegenation laws. 
> 
> It has been up to the people to decide that polygamy and incestuous 
> marriages and marriages to young children are to be banned.
> 
> Or do you imply that the courts should overturn all restrictions on 
> anyone marrying anyone else, in any permutations and combinations?

   
   Argumento ab absurdum. Any change of any law
can be mocked by making an extreme case by analogy. 
"What, lower the voting age to 18? Why not 10?"