States rights—-Indiana senator style

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Striker840

I just read what Doctor posted, again, what I see is he is saying is simply consistency. Not that he supports it, just that you should be consistent.

Yes. He is consistent in his desire to erode judicial Constitutional protections - both for abortion, and for interracial marriage.

[PurpnGold]

@Guvnah

@Paul_Thomson

@Jezcoe

Should the question of interracial marriage be left to the states?

No. Discriminating by race is against the constitution.

Nonetheless, the question should be left to the states.

Libs are leaping to an assumption that some state would ban interracial marriage. That’s the fabricated agita in this thread.

Not in 2022.

But back in the 60s? Yes, many states would have kept the ban for a long time.

Some states, like Alabama, kept fighting the ruling until the early 70s.

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@Paul_Thomson

@Jezcoe

Should the question of interracial marriage be left to the states?

No. Discriminating by race is against the constitution.

Nonetheless, the question should be left to the states.

Libs are leaping to an assumption that some state would ban interracial marriage. That’s the fabricated agita in this thread.

I am fabricating nothing.

The idea that the states should be able to determine the legality of interracial marriage is a ■■■■■■ up position to take.

It is the antithesis of what this country stands for… that the legality of a civil status of a relationship becomes illegal based on geography.

[JayJay]

They DID ban interracial marriages.

[biggestal99]

@Jezcoe

I am fabricating nothing.

The idea that the states should be able to determine the legality of interracial marriage is a ■■■■■■ up position to take.

It is the antithesis of what this country stands for… that the legality of a civil status of a relationship becomes illegal based on geography

Loving pointed at his marriage certificate when being arrested.

“Not valid in Virginia”

Allan

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Jezcoe

@Guvnah

@Paul_Thomson

@Jezcoe

Should the question of interracial marriage be left to the states?

No. Discriminating by race is against the constitution.

Nonetheless, the question should be left to the states.

Libs are leaping to an assumption that some state would ban interracial marriage. That’s the fabricated agita in this thread.

I am fabricating nothing.

The idea that the states should be able to determine the legality of interracial marriage is a ■■■■■■ up position to take.

It is the antithesis of what this country stands for… that the legality of a civil status of a relationship becomes illegal based on geography.

Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t think any state would be willing to weather the ship-storm that rolling back interracial marriage would create. States right or not, that is now a fixed right.

Gay rights? Those would be in severe jeopardy. In fact, juiced by religious persecution, that assault is already underway.

[Jezcoe]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Jezcoe

@Guvnah

@Paul_Thomson

@Jezcoe

Should the question of interracial marriage be left to the states?

No. Discriminating by race is against the constitution.

Nonetheless, the question should be left to the states.

Libs are leaping to an assumption that some state would ban interracial marriage. That’s the fabricated agita in this thread.

I am fabricating nothing.

The idea that the states should be able to determine the legality of interracial marriage is a ■■■■■■ up position to take.

It is the antithesis of what this country stands for… that the legality of a civil status of a relationship becomes illegal based on geography.

Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t think any state would be willing to weather the ship-storm that rolling back interracial marriage would create. States right or not, that is now a fixed right.

Gay rights? Those would be in severe jeopardy. In fact, juiced by religious persecution, that assault is already underway.

Yeah. No one would be dumb enough to roll it back now… but this happened in living memory. It really wasn’t that long ago.

Someone on the Judiciary committee giving a hint that a ruling like Loving v VA was made in error should be fired into the sun.

[JayJay]

I would grill Senator Braun on his principle.

What issues can be “homogenized” to the federal level and what should be left to the states? He says “most issues” shouldn’t be so “homogenized”. What would his methodology be to determine the “exceptions”?

I think we wouldn’t go too far down this line of questioning before we would find out the concept is a mirage and incoherent.

And is simply a dog whistle that obviously…to judge the outcry here…works.

[JayJay]

Why should it be left to the states?

Why should marriage be dependent on location or “local culture”, for example?

What kinds of issues should be decided at the state level and what can be “homogenized” to the federal level?

[Paul_Thomson]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Yes. He is consistent in his desire to erode judicial Constitutional protections - both for abortion, and for interracial marriage.

Where is the “constitutional protection for abortion”? Please cite the part of the constitution that protects a right to abortion.

[Guvnah]

@PurpnGold

Not in 2022.

OK. That’s my point.

It’s also my point that there are people inferring from Braun’s out-of-context statement that supporters of it would support bans on interracial marriage if a stated decided to do so.

@PurpnGold

But back in the 60s? Yes, many states would have kept the ban for a long time.

Some states, like Alabama, kept fighting the ruling until the early 70s.

Even those would have turned the corner long ago.

The whole thing is manufactured outrage.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@WuWei

False dichotomy. The 2nd was incorporated at ratification. “The right of the people…”

State recognition of a union was not a right.

Not specifically. I wonder: when you read the constitution, do you just stop at the 2nd amendment and call it good?

If so, may I suggest that you give the 9th ammendment a look?

Not specifically what?

[WuWei]

Hogwash.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@Orygun

I’m just tripping that there are a ton of people still alive in this country who could have never married someone of a different race because it was illegal.

And some of the people who vehemently fought against interracial marriage are still alive and their kids are their late 40s early 50s.

I believe your math is off.

[DougBH]

This isn’t the 1960s.

[DougBH]

Perhaps specific Constitutional amendments belong in Federal jurisdictions and penumbras do not?

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

@Orygun

I’m just tripping that there are a ton of people still alive in this country who could have never married someone of a different race because it was illegal.

And some of the people who vehemently fought against interracial marriage are still alive and their kids are their late 40s early 50s.

I believe your math is off.

If you were 18 in 67… that means you are 73 now. If you had kids at 21 (in 70) they would be 52 now. If you had kids at 25 (in 74) they would be 48 now.

I think my math checks out.

[WuWei]

…

[TheRedComet]

Frankly the state shouldn’t be involved in the business of marriage anyway. They intentionally discriminate against single people or cohabiters.

But if they are going to be in the business, then it must be applied to all citizens equally.

Which is why I feel that Loving was ultimately a good decision and imo, the states who banned interracial marriages violated the 14th amendment. The state offices were treating interracial marriages differently than intraracial marriages. That is a horrible miscarriage of justice that had to be rectified.

[JayJay]

That’s irrelevant. You’re making the false assumption that humanity always marches forward with progress.