|
Author
|
Topic: Senator Mike Braun thinks the States should be able to ban interracial marriage
|
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 21662
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 22, 2022 05:06 PM
  
http://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/us-sen-mike-braun-scotus-should-leave-abortion-interracial-marriage-to-states IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 17399
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 22, 2022 06:25 PM
Senator Braun is right. The states are the proper venue to decide abortion and all other issues which are not enumerated as rights under the federal constitution.Oh, and thanks for the utterly misleading headline. U.S. Sen. Mike Braun: SCOTUS should leave abortion, interracial marriage to states
IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 22, 2022 09:10 PM
Ugh! I don't foresee that any state is going to ban interracial marriage, but leaving interracial marriages up to states to decide, that's backward thinking, and it's bringing the Republican party back to the dark ages of the democratic party...IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 17399
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 22, 2022 11:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Belage:
Ugh! I don't foresee that any state is going to ban interracial marriage, but leaving interracial marriages up to states to decide, that's backward thinking, and it's bringing the Republican party back to the dark ages of the democratic party...
You're either for the rule of law, or you aren't. You don't get to pick and choose which issues are federal or state issues. Those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states....or to the people. 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. IP: Logged |
shura
Knowflake Posts: 3490
From: kamaloka
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 03:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Belage:
Ugh! I don't foresee that any state is going to ban interracial marriage, but leaving interracial marriages up to states to decide, that's backward thinking, and it's bringing the Republican party back to the dark ages of the democratic party...
why is it backward thinking? IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 05:11 PM
The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens due process and equal protection under the law.In 1967, in Loving VS Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that so-called “anti-miscegenation” statutes were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state...” IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 05:15 PM
Dude is already backtracking on what he said. From legal, ethical and moral standpoints, this is not a hill to die on.IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 05:17 PM
By the way, my previous posts are only about interracial marriage. Not about abortion, though I am reluctantly pro-choice, because abortion does involve the killing of another human being, and it is debatable whether or not it falls under the protection of the 14th amendment. IP: Logged |
shura
Knowflake Posts: 3490
From: kamaloka
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 05:34 PM
I understand it breaks legal precedent. I'm asking why it is "backward thinking"Yes, inter racial marriage would be a damn stupid hill to die on. I don't see him on that hill though. If anyone so much as suggests the balance of power tilts too strongly to the Federal, and we might consider returning some of that power to the states, the knee jerk gotcha is "but what about inter racial marriage." As if that's the reason we should disempower the Feds. Now disempowering the Feds is a hill we should all be willing to die on. IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 06:39 PM
The idea that interracial marriage should be left to the states instead of a basic human right is something that is backward, vestigial remnant of a worldview that is dead.If someone doesn't like interracial marriage, no one should force that person to enter into one. Personal taste should be respected, but to have grown adult humans forced to defer to the state or to any entity outside of them as to if they can marry based on their races? Nah, humanity has gone past that. IP: Logged |
BlueRoamer
Knowflake Posts: 1139
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 23, 2022 06:42 PM
everything should be left to the states except the things that I don't think should! damnit!!IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 21662
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2022 09:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by shura:
why is it backward thinking?
Yep, totally expected this from you. "Why would banning interracial marriage be a bad thing?" WTF? IP: Logged |
teasel
Knowflake Posts: 21662
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2022 09:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Belage:
Ugh! I don't foresee that any state is going to ban interracial marriage, but leaving interracial marriages up to states to decide, that's backward thinking, and it's bringing the Republican party back to the dark ages of the democratic party...
the dark ages of both parties. I was with you until that last part. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 155398
From: I hold a Juris Doctorate (J.D.) and a Legum Magister (LL.M.)!
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 24, 2022 09:38 PM
The last part is about the racism of the Democrat party—the party of the Klan and voting against civil rights legislation. IP: Logged |
Dumuzi
Knowflake Posts: 3882
From:
Registered: Oct 2018
|
posted March 25, 2022 07:09 AM
where's the issue? these should be state decisions not federalIP: Logged |
shura
Knowflake Posts: 3490
From: kamaloka
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 01:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by teasel:
Yep, totally expected this from you. "Why would banning interracial marriage be a bad thing?" WTF?
lol wtf, indeed ftr I asked Belage to further explain why fed authority should overrule state power in this instance because .... read this part carefully! - Belage is capable of explaining why she reached this conclusion, unlike, say, yourself, who either ignores the question or treats us to a dimwit Bette Midler tweet. also ftr my personal opinion is the gov should stay out of marital law as much as possible, and when it must, those laws should probably be left to the states. Being not fully decided on this point, I am eager to hear an opposing view from someone with a brain. IP: Logged |
shura
Knowflake Posts: 3490
From: kamaloka
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 01:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BlueRoamer:
everything should be left to the states except the things that I don't think should! damnit!!
everything should be left to the states except the things the Constitution doesn't think should IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 17399
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 02:37 PM
Under the United States Constitution, the regulation of marriage as a general rule is a matter of state law, not federal.IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 03:35 PM
I am no constitutional legal scholar, but I am supposed to believe that in 1967, when the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court voted UNANIMOUSLY on the Loving vs Virginia case, the judgement they rendered was unconstitutional? I mean, there was NOT ONE DISSENT on that decision and that decision is supposed to be unconstitutional? Nah... IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 17399
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 04:49 PM
We're off in the weeds here because teasel posted a lying headline on this thread....no doubt gleamed from one of her leftist lunatic sites or some moron on Twitter."Senator Mike Braun thinks the States should be able to ban interracial marriage" Senator Braun said no such thing. The gist of what he said is that states retain jurisdiction over marriage...and that's true...unless a state or states pass marriage regulations which deprive citizens of their federal 'constitutional rights' Nevertheless: "As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Windsor ruled explicitly that state governments remain the primary authority to define marriage and its benefits. It did so in striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal marital benefits to same-sex couples who were legally married in their home states, under state law allowing such marriages. This past June, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court interpreted how that basic state power over marriages can be used constitutionally when it conflicts with a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The bans on same-sex marriage in Tennessee and other states, the ruling said, must yield to that Amendment’s guarantee of equality in how a law applies to the most intimate relationship between people – that is, the choice of a life partner in marriage. The decisions in Windsor and Obergell, together, provide a classic illustration of how the Constitution operates along the boundary between national and state power, and between Article VI and the Tenth Amendment. Nothing in Obergefell defeats the continuing power of states to decide what benefits go with marriage, and to decide who can marry – so long as a state does not discriminate against people that the Constitution makes equal. And, by implication, it left entirely intact the power of states to write and enforce laws governing divorce – that is, when marriages may be ended. IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 05:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jwhop:This past June, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court interpreted how that basic state power over marriages can be used constitutionally when it conflicts with a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The bans on same-sex marriage in Tennessee and other states, the ruling said, must yield to that Amendment’s guarantee of equality in how a law applies [to the most intimate relationship between people – that is, the choice of a life partner in marriage. The decisions in Windsor and Obergell, together, provide a classic illustration of how the Constitution operates along the boundary between national and state power, and between Article VI and the Tenth Amendment. Nothing in Obergefell defeats the continuing power of states to decide what benefits go with marriage, and to decide who can marry – SO LONG AS A STATE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE THAT THE CONSTITUTION MAKES EQUAL. And, by implication, it left entirely intact the power of states to write and enforce laws governing divorce – that is, when marriages may be ended.
Bolded and CAPITALIZED for emphasis. Last time I checked, the constitution has been amended to make equal people of every race. So states cannot ban marriage on the basis of race.
IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 06:09 PM
People of different ages are not considered equal. For instance being underage is not the same as being of age, a child is not considered equal to an adult, we don't sent children to fight in war, we don't let adults have sex with children. Age is an example where the states can make their own laws as to what constitutes the age of consent and the age of marriage. Some states will have it at 16, some at 17, some at 18. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 17399
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 06:46 PM
"Last time I checked, the constitution has been amended to make equal people of every race. So states cannot ban marriage on the basis of race."Are you trying to argue with me?  I never said states could ban marriages based on race, or interracial marriages or same sex marriages. All I said and what Braun said is that marriage...and some other issues are state issues....and in the vast majority of cases, that's true. IP: Logged |
Belage
Knowflake Posts: 5972
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 25, 2022 06:59 PM
It can be fun arguing with you, Jwhop. I guess we can agree that indeed the states have the power on their own to regulate marriage in a variety of areas and on a variety of basis, but that race cannot be included as one of the variables. IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
