The US Supreme Court has made interracial marriage legal in every state for 55 years, but it was not protected by federal law until now. The Loving v. Virginia case, which declared unconstitutional a Virginia law prohibiting mixed-race marriage, led to the 1967 ruling that struck down state laws banning marriages between people of different races. The Respect for Marriage Act, passed by the Senate and House earlier, is now law, guaranteeing marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples under federal law.
The Loving v. Virginia case was brought about by Perry Loving, a white man, and his African American and American Indian wife, Mildred Jeter. The couple was married in Washington, D.C., as interracial marriage was illegal in their home state of Virginia. The Great Migration contributed to a rise in interracial interactions and thus interracial marriage despite expert opinion that “Negro-white marriages are certainly not likely.”
As of 1967, 16 states still had laws banning interracial marriages. Interracial common law marriages in French and Spanish America, including New Orleans, were still in effect. However, questions of interstate comity and racial identity would remain issues in many such cases as long as laws against interracial marriage remained in effect.
In the United States, one-in-ten married people in 2015 had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity, resulting in 11 million people having a spouse of another race or ethnicity. The right to interracial marriage would be protected by state law, under legislation proposed by an Essex County Democrat. Anti-miscegenation laws were first introduced in 1908.
📹 Sen. Mike Braun says interracial marriage legalization should be up to states, not federal gov’t
In a conversation with reporters Tuesday, Republican U.S. Senator Mike Braun said he would be okay with leaving the question of …
Why was interracial marriage banned in Virginia?
The Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924 made interracial marriage illegal. The law came from a racist propaganda movement aimed at keeping whites and blacks apart. On July 11, 1958, Caroline County arrested Richard Loving for violating the RIA. A warrant for Mildred Loving was issued soon after. Both were arrested and given a suspended year in prison sentence. They were allowed to relocate to Washington, DC, on the condition they not return for 25 years.
Arrest warrant for Mildred Loving, 7/1958. (National Archives Identifier 17412465); Arrest warrant for Richard Loving, 7/1958. (National Archives Identifier 17412470) By 1964, the Lovings decided to appeal their conviction and wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred them to the ACLU. Two attorneys, Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop, took their case and asked the county circuit court to drop the sentence because of the 14th Amendment.
What percentage of interracial marriages end in divorce?
In the first 10 years of marriage, interracial couples are 40% more likely to divorce than same-race couples. A blog post on interracial divorce statistics offers a critical perspective on an often overlooked issue in modern marriages—racial dynamics. The statistic shows that interracial couples are more likely to divorce than same-race couples in the first decade of marriage. The higher likelihood of divorce for interracial couples sparks a conversation about the challenges such couples may face. This information helps people think more deeply about interracial relationships. It makes them think about why there is a difference in divorce rates between interracial and same-race couples. Black women married to white men are less likely to divorce than black women married to black men. This statistic is a key point in our discussion of interracial divorce. It shows how Black women and White men relate to each other, challenging ideas about the success of such unions. Black women married to white men are less likely to divorce. This shows that these marriages can be strong and happy. This insight helps us understand why some interracial marriages last longer. It also helps us talk about race in relationships in a more nuanced way. Couples who live together before marriage are no more likely to divorce than couples who live together before marriage of the same race.
Is interracial marriage legal?
Interracial marriage has been legal in the United States since at least 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court opinion that the freedom to marry someone of another race resides with the individual. Federal law protects interracial marriages since 2022.
People used to oppose interracial marriage because of religion. Most white Southern evangelicals believed that racial segregation, including in marriage, was God’s will. They said that recognizing interracial couples would go against their religious beliefs. This was the view of many evangelical churches until the late 20th century. Since Loving, states have removed their bans. The last to do so was Alabama in a 2000 referendum.
In the 1950s, only 5% of people approved of interracial marriage. By 2021, that number had risen to 94%. The proportion of interracial marriages has also risen. In 1967, only 3% of marriages were interracial. By 2019, that number had risen to 19%.
When did interracial couples become legal?
Interracial marriage has been legal in the United States since at least 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court opinion that the freedom to marry someone of another race resides with the individual. Federal law protects interracial marriages since 2022.
People used to oppose interracial marriage because of religion. Most white Southern evangelicals believed that racial segregation, including in marriage, was God’s will. They said that recognizing interracial couples would go against their religious beliefs. This was the view of many evangelical churches until the late 20th century. Since Loving, states have removed their bans. The last to do so was Alabama in a 2000 referendum.
In the 1950s, only 5% of people approved of interracial marriage. By 2021, that number had risen to 94%. The proportion of interracial marriages has also risen. In 1967, only 3% of marriages were interracial. By 2019, that number had risen to 19%.
Which race has the lowest divorce rate?
Asian Americans have the lowest divorce rates of all races. Currently, 12.4 out of every 1,000 Asian Americans get divorced. At least one out of every 18 Asian American women and 16% of Asian American men get divorced. Hispanic-origin Americans have the second-highest number of divorces. In 2018, 18.5% of people of this ethnicity got divorced. 30% were women and 27% were men.
White Americans are third with 15.1 divorces per 1,000 people. About one-third of white women and men have been divorced at least once.
What 1967 Supreme Court decision declared unconstitutional laws in sixteen states that prohibited interracial marriage?
On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. The decision overturns bans on interracial marriage in sixteen states. Transcription Source: US Supreme Court. June 12, 1967. In Justia. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html. Loving v. Virginia Argued April 10, 1967. Decided June 12, 1967. 388 U.S. 1 Appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Virginia’s law banning marriages based on race is found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 388 U.S. 4–12.
Who was the first interracial couple in America?
Pocahontas and John Rolfe were the first interracial couple in North America. Pocahontas was an American Indian woman and the daughter of a chief. John Rolfe was an English tobacco farmer.
What couple made interracial marriage legal?
A century after the Civil War, many states still had laws against interracial marriage. Mildred and Richard Loving were a Virginia couple whose Supreme Court ruling on June 12, 1967, dealt a major blow to miscegenation laws. The couple married in 1958 in Washington, where interracial marriage was legal, then moved to Virginia. The sheriff came to their home in the middle of the night and charged them with violating several Virginia codes. One code made it illegal for a white person to marry anyone but another white person. It was also illegal to leave the state to avoid miscegenation laws. Such marriages were considered void in Virginia. Mildred was a black woman, but her obituary says she thought of herself as Indian because her parents were Native American. Virginia had different miscegenation laws since the 1600s. The 1924 Racial Integrity Act defined anyone who wasn’t white as “colored.” The only exception was for those who were 1/16 Native American, but even that had restrictions.
Which country has the highest divorce rate?
Highest Divorce Rate Country. Maldives has the highest divorce rate, at 5.5 in 2021, according to the World Population Review.
Many reasons can explain this increase in divorces. The divorce process is simple and cheap in Maldives. Second, women can support themselves without husbands. Also, getting divorced is not seen as shameful in modern Maldives.
What’s the divorce rate in Brazil?
Divorce statistics by country/region (per 1,000 population / year) Country/region Continent Ratio Percent Brazil South America 21.21 Bulgaria Europe 36.59 Canada North America 47.73.
Estimates of annual divorces by country The United Nations says that these countries had the most divorces in 2009. Divorce rate. This is the number of divorces per 1,000 people per year. For example, if a city has 10,000 people and 30 couples divorce in one year, the crude divorce rate is 3 divorces per 1,000 residents. The crude divorce rate shows how many people get divorced in an area, but it doesn’t include people who can’t get married. It includes young children who are not yet old enough to get married. In a place with many children or single adults, the divorce rate seems low. In a place with few children and single adults, the divorce rate can seem high.
What declared bans on interracial marriage to be unconstitutional?
In Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional.
U.S. Supreme Court. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia’s law banning marriages based on race was found to be unconstitutional. pp. 388 U.S. 4-12.
Which race has the highest divorce rate?
What race has the highest divorce rate? Black adults have the highest divorce rate and the lowest marriage rate. But research shows they also marry later. 32 for men, 31 for women. Black women have more divorces than marriages. In 2018, 31 Black people got divorced and 17.3 got married. Black adults are the largest group of never-married people. In 2016, 79% of 25-29-year-old Black women and 18% of 55-year-olds were never married. Ethnicity affects divorce rates.
📹 Republican Senator Says Interracial Marriage Never Should Have Been Legalized
Republican Sen. Mike Braun is asked by a local Indiana newspaper whether he believes an issue like that of interracial marriage …
As someone biracial who grew up in a town where I got treated like crap because I wasn’t white enough to be with white people or black enough to be with black people, people like him that reinforce this rhetoric does nothing but make my life harder all I can think of is sheer evil thoughts of how I want to hurt him.
What Braun was really saying is that he doesn’t like the Constitution….which makes Supreme Court Judgments on The Law ‘The Supreme Law of The Land’…..Federal law supersedes state law as in state law cannot obviate federal law ( if in conflict federal law is the default state law )…..Braun is saying that, if some states don’t like what the federal law might be then the Supreme Court shouldn’t rule on it and just leave it to the individual states. Anyone want to wonder what that position would be if it were applied to abortion rights? Or Voter Rights to name just a few?……..It certainly would change with neck snapping rapidity….mostly because the current crop of GOPers have no consistent message or platform…..It is all just reactionary as they see what might catch their attention on twitter or whatever outline their largest donors have given to them….Tomorrow half of them will change, 1/4 will try to backtrack or give themselves an out, and the other 1/4 will stay silent waiting for those donors to chime in again.
So, if Braun (he deserves no title, and I’ll give him none) “misunderstood the question.” I would VERY MUCH like to know what question he thought had been asked? Since he answered so confidently, surely he knows what he thought he heard. He should share that with us so we can all understand his true intention; though, I imagine it will take his entire staff and a whole damned lot of creative imagination to reverse engineer that one. Especially since his ultimate point delivers the same result: states deciding which inalienable rights to uphold and which to disregard and for whom.
Sick and tired of Government in MY business. I have one life. If I’m not infringing on anothers rights, then I want to live it my way. I don’t want others or laws or restrictions on how I should think, act, believe, feel, worship, love, live or die. It should be up to me, not a committee nor other person. Don’t tell us there is a right or wrong – left or right. It’s not up to you.
I remember back when the RNC convent was held in Philadelphia and across the bridge in Camden NJ, the state and federal government literally bought and demolished every one of the strip clubs and filthy adult book stores/peep shows there. They didn’t do this for New Jersey’s citizens. They did this because they knew that the RNC congregates would be those establishments main customers!! The party of hypocrites. Do as we say. But not as we do. They don’t want interracial marriages, but will enjoy a closed door interracial relationship.
People voted him in as a senator so the truth is a lot of people lowkey agree with him and just are fronting like they are not in public. So what that means is although your fellow countrymen ( lots of Republicans specifically) say y’all are cool they really view you as something less than a human and just want you to know your role as that lesser being.
All men are created equal. In the Bible the term, “Men,” is the term for humans. So if all humans are equal what would the reason for any discrimination for any reason. People like this feel that they have the right to separate equally humans into sets of their choosing. Can they publish the list of how these people would segregate the people. Where is this list. Then we need an explanation as to how they came up with each item.
It’s ok to have different views on an issue, but when one group of people impose their views on the rest of the people using state laws, then it become a problem with people freedom. This is how my grandparents, and parents lost their rights to vote through state laws .. .(The Mississippi Plan of 1875 and the state legislature passed a new constitution in 1890, which effectively disenfranchised and disarmed most black by erecting barriers to vote registration and firearms ownership. Disenfranchisement was enforced through terrorist violence and fraud, and most black people stopped trying to register or vote. They did not regain the power to vote until the late 1960s when the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to authorize federal oversight of state practices and protect citizens’ right). Interracial marriage is a marriage involving spouses who belong to different races or racialized ethnicities. in the 1960 interracial marringe was forbidden by law in 31 U.S. states. It became legal throughout the United State in 1967, following the decision of the Supreme Court of the United State under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the case Loving v. Virginia, which ruled that race-based restrictions on marriages, such as the MISCEGENATION LAW in the state of Virginia, violated the Equal Protection Clause (adopted in 1868) of the United State Constitution. State Laws can be use to either promote or suppress individual freedom. When one group freedom is suppress it affect all groups freedom.
It should be absolutely up to no one to decide whom a person can marry to or how many kids couples can have or anything on that nature. Governments should not make make policies for peoples bedroom . People like this senators banned some other people from drinking from same fountain water. This great country will not go back to those years.
Black woman x White man here. I don’t care about legal marriage period. Me, and my boyfriend can feel happily married without the legal process, have a wedding, and everything. People will disagree, but It’s about love NOT law. Plus not legally married saves time for when it comes down to breaking up. It cost more to get a divorce, and I say no thank you to that.
Why stop at the states? Why not make it smaller and let em make that at the local level? Let counties decide if they want interracial marriage, that’s smaller…..or even smaller let individuals decide wether they want to have abortions or who the want to marry. Omg what just happened. I went so right, that I became left. Hmmmm….turns out it’s only about a particular kind of rights. Wonder why it’s at the state, rather than the individual level….hmm.
At this point let’s just become 50 separate countries if we don’t wanna be “United” and “states right” like southern schools would still be segregated if federal didn’t step in. They ruled to integrate in the mid 1950’s wasn’t until 1970’s that they finally forced it cause they wanted “the states to do it on their own” and “not to force them” when it was ruled in 1950’s but they were refusing to do it and were still segregated and in 70’s taking give or take 20 years of their sweet time. It was “states rights” to have slaves in all succession letters they had slavery more times than “states rights” and even then more times than not it was tied to slavery thinking they had the “right” to own another human being as property. How far back we gonna go? No one gets to vote except straight cis white men with enough money to have property? We gonna bring back slavery? Just tryin to figure the endgame here.
Something to also keep in mind is that prosecutors in Indiana were actively pursuing charges when Indiana had a miscegenation laws. The biggest part when during the post war 1860’s and in the 1920’s. I know a lot of prosecutors, Loren Delp and Rodney Cummings of Indiana, who have stated they would pursuit similar per the evidence. Which is scary.
There is only one race, and it is human. My husband is Italian . We are an Ethnically Blended or Multicultural Couple. People who are against or who do not like other ethnic groups should be referred to as ‘Bigots’, not racists. We need to take ‘Race’ out of the equation. If God or whomever you believe in did not intend for different cultures and ethnicities to mingle HE would have made square pegs for square slots and round pegs for round slots and so on. I do not intend to be rude but trying to dumb it down for people who have a hard time comprehending.
It really pisses me off that humans divide themselves by “races” because humans have only 8 blood types. It’s the human race with culture differences which should be celebrated, not ostracized. What do you celebrate? How do you cook your food and what spices do you use? What happened to the saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover?”
It’s the “seems well qualified” for me. Wow! What are people like this so threatened by. Will someone please explain this to me? As an aside.. the ‘interracial’ (interethnic, but whatever. You all see what I’m getting at.) hurts so much I am not going to even address that other than this sentence. Alright, well, love and peace to all of us! 🌍🌈🙏🏾💜🦋
As a republican, i strongly oppose this position. My wife is a philippines native so obviously i have some skin in this game but government officials and attorneys have actually made money off our marriage. We paid for her permanent residency, document/visa fees, attorney fees etc out of our own pockets and we have never asked for or received a dime from the government. The government has no business getting involved in these matters at the state or federal level unless someone has come to this country illegally, by way of fraud or if they have come here legally and proven themselves to be an extreme burden or liability to the United States.
Basically the government shouldn’t be in the business of telling people who they cannot marry except in the case of minors. IN fact we shouldn’t allow the states to pass laws that conflict with basic rights . Do these people not know that this is why we fought the civil war? Some states wanted to allow people to won humans which is fundamentally wrong especially in a country that beats their chest continuously about ” freedom” and individual liberty.
I think are main problem in are Society is the fact we focus too much on Color when it comes to rights I think are skin as like fur I know that sounds weird but you see not every animal has the same fur coat they are different that’s all it is we just don’t have the same look if that makes sense I know my analogy sounds weird it shouldn’t matter we all bleed we all pee yellow we are exactly the same species it makes no difference and it should make one if we as a society keep going down this pathway we will never thrive we will continue to back track and take away rights from people over the Color of their skin to me I live life like I’m color blind I don’t care if you black white green or yellow that’s not something we should worry about love is love and if we stay divided nothing will ever change
What does interracial marriage have to do with anything like abortion? Is this man insane? I wouldn’t want my family torn a part just because I’m not the same ethnicity as my husband, that’s cruel. Why should ethnicity matter when it comes to marriage? How did this even come up, if someone starts screaming this man is a racist he will be in his feeling about it.
Cmon Indiana, vote this joker out of office. Let’s try to be united!! This man’s statement had me absolutely flabbergasted! With the current decisions being make, I feel like I’m living in a different century (I don’t mean a future one). After seeing this I now know why he voted against helping sick veterans. Call his office let him know he needs to vote YES on the PACT bill.
This racist senator is the type of person that gives Christian conservatives a very bad name. If he is a Christian, then he should be able to stand up for interracial marriage between a man and a woman because every single marriage one earth between a man and a woman is an interracial marriage. Now, however, on the issue of same sex, …..it should be opposed and it should offend all Christians that gay marriage is being compared to interracial marriage. This should also expose the racism that is very prevalent in the LGBT community. Remember the nazis had quite a few gays in their ranks.
I think we should stop and look at what happened there. I don’t know this man at all, nor do I care. However, he was talking about letting states decide issues for themselves(I agree with this). Then SOMEONE ELSE baited the racial question. I think if they had asked him any question regarding race or not, he would have answered the same way. The media is deceiving you guys and you’re tar and feathering him when I’m sure what we should actually be mad about is not this.
Heavenly Father, through your precious Son the Lord Jesus Christ Savior and Redeemer, Precious Holy Spirit; you are no respecter of person. Your Holy Word says, who is man that thou shall be mindful of Him. Galatians 5:22-23 says the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, meekness, self-control, temperance, kindness. Lord Jesus, you said that “many in that day will say Lord, Lord,” didn’t we do your works, and you will say depart from me you who “practice” evil I never knew you. I pray that Senator Mike Braun repent for his word’s racism is works of the flesh not the fruit of the Spirit. Senator Braun will give an account of his before the Almighty GOD; Elohim not today or tomorrow but the “hour” will come. Repent therefore and be saved Matthew 4:17 Amen.
Is any one actually paying attention to the context of the question? The senator is reaffirming his position in state rights. That does not indict him of anything. He did not say he was against interracial marriage. He almost laughs at the absurdity of the reporters “gotcha” question when referring back to SCOTUS. I do not agree with him, however I understand his point he is asserting. This is being blown seriously out of proportion.
Interracial sexual relations and marriages were prohibited when I was born, this made my parents criminals as this was a felony in most of the US States. I was illegitamite and my mother carried this burden by witholding the truth in an effort to protect herself, my biological father and me. These laws, not changed or challenegd until 1967, were an effort to keep the races segragated . Needless to say I was triggered by the line of questioning of the dignified and professional American Black woman ..the outright racism by this old white, entitled and self important a$$ was clearly evidant and the slam against Jackson, signalling that her marriage to a white man should be questioned..I am so angry, as I am also in an interracial marriage and to hear this archaic questioning was quite frankly shocking.
Honestly, I’m with him on overturning Loving. Being the child of an interracial couple is not something that I would recommend in the United States. It was hard growing up and being mixed. Now, as an adult, I can choose who I interact with, but going to school, college, and even in my early working years, it was very hard. Unlike being white or black, being mixed is a conscious choice the parents make. So in my opinion, black and white interracial couples should only be allowed to marry if they cannot have kids. I’m sorry to any mixed people or kids who see this and feel bad. There’s just no support for you. I wouldn’t want you to come into the world, as Mariah said, “blind and unguided, into a world divided.” Unfortunately, the people who go into mixed marriages don’t always have their heads on straight.
People are entitled to equal protection under the law thanks to the Constitution. The idea that a state should be able to deny people of different races from entering into a marriage contract is a violation of equal protection. Each state is supposed to honor contracts issued by the other states, so Braun’s idea that letting states do their own thing on legal contracts they choose to honor would be good for the country is laughable. These people want to take us back to the early 1800’s.
Indiana politics is a shit show. I’m a progressive politician from the state. I am the district chair for my township and have run for local offices many times. The state chair for the Democratic party said to my face that our county wasn’t going to get anything from the state party because we aren’t a competitive district. Well, when your party abandons an area you tend to lose the voters. It’s not rocket science. After they passed the “right to work” bill here it absolutely neutered what unions were still here leaving the state Democrats up a creek with no funding. I’m leaving Indiana as soon as my finances allow. This is absolutely still Trump country. They don’t believe in democracy anymore. They are trying to ban trans kids from going to the bathroom and dismantle public education. Outside of Indianapolis the state is suffering a brain drain and it shows. The future seems quite bleak. My state senator is a known racist, outed on the local news, and still won over 60% of the vote.
States should have the rights to deny rights from their citizens without the tyrannical overreach of a federal government imposing rights on citizens against the will of the states. If Indiana wants to forbid loving consensual relationships between people on the basis of melanin count, the Federal government shouldn’t be allowed to recognize that. Allowing people the freedom to think and act as they see fit is tyranny! (Sarcasm)
Imagine the amount of migration that will occur if they get what they want. Most people will flock to the states where their rights will be protected and zealots will flock to live in the state theocracy that most suits them. The disparity between successful states and poor states will grow immensely. Businesses will go where the educated skilled workers are, and that won’t be states that infringe on basic human equality and promote bigotry.
So basically this guy is saying states should have freedom to choose whatever rules and laws they want? Sounds awfully confederate if you ask me, this is why we cant have nice things and why the supreme court has to weigh in on what should be the most basic of rights. If this guy doesnt like the supreme court over ruling backwards states then maybe they shouldnt be so backwards, problem solved supreme court doesnt have to interfere with your rights 🙂
Many of the founding fathers were federalists, which is why the US is a federation. Regulation is needed so that individual states don’t become fascist. The people who love the founding fathers also love small government. In fact, they want it to be so small that it’s non existent, meaning a confederation. See where this goes? Confederation = right wingers fascist wet dream, always has and always will. They suck. That’s why we’re seeing theocratic fascism in red states, far right federal government = confederation + stealing money from blue states and giving it to red states.
Marriage is State not Federal Jurisdiction, discrimination is Federal not State Jurisdiction. United States Supreme Court Loving v Virginia 1967 Virginia had a law that DENIED a White person the right to marry a person of any other race, they ruled it was based on White Supremacy and threw it out. The last section of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment SPECIFICALLY applies to States and it SPECIFICALLY denies them the authority to deny “Equal Protection under the Law” That’s EXACTLY the same reason they threw out all the State laws banning Gay Marriage, if a “Straight” couple had to right to get married, a “Gay” couple has the right to get married.
I’d just love to read the hypothetical transcript of this case.. imagine Clearance Thomas now trying to justify his marriage as equal. Then all the fun when drooling jackass’s tell you that can’t be… Yr just going threw a phase. Love that sinner… Hate that sin… To risky though… Maybe a tv movie?
We make a big deal about this guy because he said something horrible, but what he said is just said what Republicans actually believe. Like, the fact that he’s not being hypocritical (unlike most Republicans) and just honestly laying out their ideology is going to end up getting him more flack than all the other people whose only difference is that they don’t say the quiet part loud because they’re more competent fascists.
Sorry but legitimate concerns about government overreach still happens. Let’s not forget that the SALT tax in BBB benefits mostly blue states, and that’s blatant favoritism. Other issues that definitely need to be controlled by states – Subsidies – Gun laws – Sales & Income Tax – Religious freedom & expression – Police budgets – Union laws – Justice reform – Court systems – Crime system – Legalized drugs
What is wrong with letting states decide? If a state if full of conservative racist bigots, let them vote for gay marriage, abortion, interracial marriage, birth control, etc. to be illegal. And let them rot in that hell-hole of a state. Other states can then see how backward and bad these policies actually are. Let peop,e in the states decide if they want to be miserable or not. What is wrong with that? I think that is democracy at it’s best!
The thing is that the Left should actually agree with the position Braun is (or pretends he is) taking, which is basically that the SCOTUS should have very little power and should defer most of its responsibilities to the states. The headlines are “some states would outlaw abortion and interracial marriage and birth control,” which are all tragic, but we’re headed in those directions anyway with the new rise of fascism. It would also, however, overturn Citizens United and related cases, so that we at least would have a CHANCE at functional democracy. It would overturn Heller, so that there would be some foothold in reversing the sea of gun violence. The corporate decisions that this SCOTUS will make against unions and environmental protections and labor laws will all be things we have to spend years trying to reverse. If that’s the way people like Braun actually want it (spoiler: it isn’t, he surely only wants the SCOTUS to protect Rightwing decisions and not Leftwing ones), his vision would actually be better than what we have now. The Blue states, at least, would be immensely better and more humane places to live. The Red States would be Hellish, but that’s what their politicians are creating for those states right now anyway.
But what about them wanting to ban birth control even between married couples the Republicans want to go back a thousand years you got to talk about Marsha Blackburn saying that even married couples don’t have the right to use birth control. She’s a whole Mac major I don’t understand how she became my senator.
Mike Braun is right. Let states do what their residents want them to do. Let Vermont try out communism. Let Mississippi experiment with theocracy. Let California have a shot at eco socialism. Let Wyoming implement Any Rand philosophy. Let people move freely to states they feel comfortable in. That’s the ideal America. 50 seperate Republics doing their own thing.
States Rights is such a terrible argument because: 1) Every state has minorities with Constitutional rights you cannot deny. 2) States have slight majorities for any given party, no state is a political monolith 3) The supreme court is the authority on what the constitution protects for all citizens as laid out in the constitution. Seriously WTF cons?
From the short clip, he’s clearly not saying that interracial marriage shouldn’t be legal. He’s saying that EVEN in the case of interracial marriage (which he presumably approves of) states should have the say rather than federal court. He’s using this as an example of being consistent in upholding a principle, even if one personally doesn’t like the outcome. I vehemently disagree, and the example of interracial marriage highlights the problem with his principle, but I don’t think we should unfairly characterize him as being against interracial marriage.
i like dating asian and hispanic women and always have. if i were to get married it would probably be to one or the other because of a preference i have. if the putin owned gop or anyone else doesn’t like it tough luck too bad. if they don’t like it they can move to russia or north korea and live under a dictator. i’ll marry who i like and if i have children with that person great. i will be happy while the haters can go sit in a corner and cry about it day and night.
I don’t agree with the senator, nor do I like him, but this title seriously misrepresents the clip. He didn’t say or imply that interracial marriage shouldn’t have been legalized. His policy opinion could’ve lead to that, and that’s why I disagree with him, and frankly think he must be kind of dumb, but that doesn’t mean you should twist what he said.