Why are Republicans so against interracial marriages and couples - and what is wrong with it?

[legalboxers]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mike-braun-interracial-marriage_n_623a3627e4b0c727d4848948
GOP Sen. Mike Braun Says Interracial Marriage Should Be Left To The States

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he believes interracial marriage should not be legal nationwide and that individual states should decide whether to allow it.
“So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?” reporter Dan Carden of The Times of Northwest Indiana asked Braun.

“Yes,” the senator replied on the call with Indiana reporters. “I think that’s something ― if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that’s hypocritical.”
The Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage nationwide in 1967, in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia.
The world Braun would return to is what same-sex couples faced until 2015 — their marriage was not recognized federally and might be legal in one state but not the next. That sort of discrimination had ramifications in all corners of life, including medical decisions and family planning.

Updates

+1 y

Come on Fox News / OAN / NewsMax / Trump Supporters... Get on your shinebox and spew your crap

Updates

+1 y

Heyyyyy TRUMP FUCKS.. JOE BIDEN IS STILL YOUR MOTHER FUCKING PRESIDENT! THE BIBLE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT INTERRACIAL COUPLES OR GAYS OR LESBIANS, ITS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR DONALD J TRUMP. SO I DO HOPE WE HAVE ANOTHER JONESTOWN.. AND YOU DRINK THE KOOLAID!

Updates

+1 y

BIDEN
IS
STILL
YOUR
FUCKING
PRESIDENT

[monorprise]

Your not reading what Mike said, Sen. Mike Braun expressed no opinion on the subject of what should be legal marriage at all in this conversation.

Mike Braun was addressing the issue of Federal court edicts rewriting the rules of Marriage about which the Federal Constitution says nothing at all.
(Read the 10th Amendment for how your suppose to handle matters not explicitly written in the Federal Constitution)

Whether you agree or disagree with what the Federal court's policy is irrelevant, the fact that they are imposing said policy instead of elected and authorized State legislators using the accountable law making process is an infinitely bigger and more important issue being discussed by Mike.

[Roxxy99]

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the equal protection clause. No, the constitution doesn’t speak to marriage directly but it does require that laws treat all people equally. When state laws discriminate against people because of race, you run afoul of the constitution and federal courts are going to step in….. as they should. Mike Braun’s comments are a dog whistle to people who would happily discriminate. He knows there is a relevant constitutional issue here. States are not free under the 10th amendment to discriminate.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes, this makes no sense, I agree why are Republicans so against Interracial marriages and couples?

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Thanks for Most Helpful Guy :)

[Aerissa_Jade]

I'm against the government being involved in marriage to begin with, as it stands now, it is a legal contract between two people and the government, take the government out of it and while we are at it, the two part as well. If more than two want to get married, let them.

Other than this guy, I've never heard a Republican say they are against it. Sometimes there is just weird people on both sides.

[monorprise]

Need to carefully read what little Mike said, he wasn't expressing an opinion of marriage but rather who gets to make that choice.

Under a Federal Constitution which says nothing of the subject of marriage, the 10th amendment makes it rather clear mike was correct and the Federal Court had no business making and imposing its own marriage policy, rather than leaving the matter to the people or their states as required by the 10th and where it had always until then been.

[Gwenhwyfar]

That blatantly violates the Equal Protection Clause

[legalboxers]

@gwenhwyfar but yet... They are against it... Does the Bible say anything about it?

[legalboxers]

@gwenhwyfar also - as far as I know - they are no laws in the books which is AGAINST this. Unless I'm not reading caselaw correctly...

[Gwenhwyfar]

Loving prohibits it. Also there are several civil rights laws prohibiting racial discrimination. Also Solomon and the Queen of Sheba were an interracial couple.

[monorprise]

Forgive me but that is a bit silly lets first read the Equal Protection Clause it says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

What is equal protection of the law, if it is not anther way for saying equal application of the law?

How is it possible that a law which equally apply to everyone and is equally enforced be denying anyone its equal protection?

For historic contents this was made in an era where men would kill other men and they would simply refuse to enforce the law against the killer.

But if you want a broad interpretation of "equal protection" then you might as well throw out the entire constitution and let courts decide what is "Equal" on a case by case basis.

I won't pretend that the 14th amendment is the most well written of Amendments, it was in fact written by radicals and ratified only under the gun by 11 states and only if you presume no state could ever withdraw said ratification even if their legislator was thrown out by the People on its account before the 3/4ths were reached.

This clause however is not among its irresponsible clauses.

[monorprise]

@gwenhwyfar There is a problem with accepting the arbitrary edict of hand picked Federal Politicians in black robes on a case by case basis as "law" given nobody elected them, nor did their edict get signed by the executive.

A Constitution of Civil Government only works if it is enforced by separate parties in checks and balances. If any one party or group is allowed to unilaterally dictate its meaning, they become unaccountable to the thing of clay they have made out of that Constitution.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@monorprise I disagree 100% but ok

[monorprise]

@gwenhwyfar Part of the problem with the 14th amendment in general it was so poorly written as to open itself up to enormous abuse if not read carefully within the context of its time.

Indeed since that time you could argue the Federal courts have effectively abolished the entire Federal Constitution using a few of it's clauses.

If your interested the Amendment was originally written to make the provisions of the 1866 Civil rights act legal.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@monorprise again I disagree

[monorprise]

@gwenhwyfar well thank you for reading what i have to say on the matter then.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@monorprise you’re very welcome

[Gwenhwyfar]

@monorprise even if we could read the minds of the Founding Fathers, why should we be locked into believing the same things a bunch of relatively old very rich white guys believed two hundred years ago? Societies evolve. The Constitution needs to evolve too. That’s why we have an amendment process and judicial review.

[Gwenhwyfar]

@monorprise none of this addresses my point. I don’t care what people in the past thought. I care what people today think.

[menina]

Well, aren't all Republicans racist? If they are, this doesn't surprise me. They want everyone to be white and straight, so interracial marriages feel like an attack to them.
If they want to stop these marriages from happening, it's already too late Lol

[ArtTheFart]

I'm pretty sure it comes down to African-American males are supreme masters at fucking. White boys are inferior when it comes to the Mandingo dick. Trying to make whoopee to a white woman who's been turned out by a black man is like trying to wear a pair of boots with no shoelaces, your feet will just slip out in a matter of seconds.

[JustiReno]

Bahahaha if we are to assign a superior race I’ll gladly take too dog rrrwwoof

[monorprise]

Like Senator Mike, I am offer no opinion on that subject instead insisting that women are qualified to answer that question.

Please don't conflate my view of where a this choice is made with what choice should be made, as the HuffPost did for Mike's view of where marriage law is made with what it should be.

[Agape93]

No idea. There's nothing wrong with it.

[Kurdistan1991]

Reminds me of Yazidi Kurds.

[JustiReno]

How? All I heard is they worship the snake from the garden of Eden does this have any basis in reality?

[Kurdistan1991]

@JustiReno a different group of Kurds who worship snakes. they believe in one god and the peacock is important to them. the forms of worship they do by looking up to the sun and jumping over the fire for the forgiveness of their sins

[JustiReno]

Oh wow I was so wrong why you can’t trust the internet

[Kurdistan1991]

@JustiReno huh?

[RedBullRacingLemia]

I dont know