Sen. Mike Braun says interracial marriage legalization should be up to states, not federal gov't
Was Senator Braun saying the quiet part out loud then, or is he LYING now? You decide.
And what is wrong with his reply? Anything, in your opinion?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
| |
|
Sen. Mike Braun says interracial marriage legalization should be up to states, not federal gov't |
When the senator was asked directly if he supported the Supreme Court “leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states,” Braun responded, “Yes.”“I think 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,” Braun said. “You can list a whole host of issues. When it comes down to whatever they are, I’m going to say they’re not going to all make you happy within a given state. But we’re better off having states manifest their points of view, rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did.”
Braun released a statement hours later, walking back his comments. He said he misunderstood “a line of questioning" and emphasized that he condemns racism “in any form.”
“Earlier during a virtual press conference I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage,” Braun said. “Let me be clear on that issue — there is no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race, that is not something that is even up for debate, and I condemn racism in any form, at all levels and by any states, entities, or individuals.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/indiana-sen-braun-walks-back-interracial-marriage-comments-83627237
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
So here we go-the 'unmaking' of the United States in reverse.
He's not personally in favor of outlawing interracial marriage but he's ok with delegating it to people who are.
I guess there's not much point in having a quiet part if you never say it out loud.
HA!
Well, I thought they'd take a little bit longer to try to walk back Virginia vs. Loving.
Has anybody told Clarence and Ginny Thomas yet?
LOL! Of course, Clarence and Ginny will want (have already made provision for?) a carve out for interracial marriage or at least have researched if their home 'base' will allow their marriage to continue as valid.
This is what divisive politics looks like! And note the spin (see video) Braun puts on diversity; a set of immature states choose to opt in or out on people marrying opposite sex partners or even dating them for that matter, because of external skin color! . . . . And, somehow that fine distinction escaped Braun as the words poured from his lips about constitutional adherance being 'the thing' deemed appropriate.
Misunderstood the question my ass.
In the video presentation above, this senator spins "diversity" to mean all sorts of discordant activities from our nation's "childhood" as open and up for a return. We all remember the hodge-podge of one state not honoring the certificates of another state-or even the state next door-even on civil rights!
Senator Braun meant what he said until he got a 'call' to take it back (at least until it comes to court)!
So, states have marriage laws and under this amendment, they apply to all people equally. I’m not seeing an exception here where you can deny someone the right to marry on the basis of race.
This is to be a concern too for the courts as necessary.
Braun typifies the venality and abject stupidity of the republican political class. He must be very popular with the reactionary base.
Typifies, hardly.
He was a Dem until 10 years ago and got his MBA at Harvard. He help save his Dad’s small manufacturing business and grew it fro 15 employees to 300. Je the expanded it into warehousing and transportation adding another 550 employees. He thinks Greta Thunberg is inspiring.
What does any of that have to do with what Gsquared said?
None of that makes him a decent Senator.
Maybe he should go back to being a MOGUL. /s
Of course not, who said that it did?
Glad we agree.
No one. I made a statement, not an argument.
Yes he does. It makes me so proud that he is one of my Senators. /s
The other one is just as stupid.
Are you saying they would choose Braun over brains?
Funny!
What we have now are "Republicans" and "conservatives" here on Newstalkers making excuses for every single stupid thing their compatriots say.
Which ones here are making excuses for what Braun said?
That's for sure.
Yet more of the same nonsense. Interracial marriage should not be up to the states or the federal government; it should be up to the individuals getting married.
Government needs to get out of personal matters and focus on defense, infrastructure, etc.
If two adults wish to get married, then (government) shut up and issue the license.
Completely agree, privatize marriage. We need only keep a few laws on age, incest prohibition and then it should be a private decision unless the participants desire religious involvement.
I am interpreting this as a rare non-wry face-value comment.
No wry, some pinot noir with honey-mustard chicken thighs.
I will tell you another trick of the 'devil.' Ofttimes, it appears that some uncompromising 'spokesmen and spokeswomen' from the Right are on liberal comment sites for purposes of spying out, trying out, and honing conservative talking points to re-deploy against liberals through policy-making and other 'contests.'
Whereas, liberals like to be upfront and plainspoken, there is 'working of deceit' (hard to ignore) happening and running amok on the Right.
Why do associate the above paragraph with your comment, friend TiG?
Because we, liberals, have and discuss a great deal about diversity. And, in the video that word is being appropriated by the Right to convey a perverted concept ("flip the script") of what diversity is. That is, diversity can be exclusionary. Now, how does that fly in the face of commonsense?
It is down and dirty. But I see it happening now more than every.
I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem that at some level the right to assemble includes a right to exclude.
If you were organizing a union and held a meeting away from company property, you would not want management in attendance unless they were specifically invited.
It's not obvious to me how this concept could be weaponized to make interracial marriage illegal.
Hi Lemuel G. There is a context here to the statement that is separate and apart from a freedom of association. (Lester Maddox-D. Georgia) lost his case in the 60's against barring Africans and blacks from entering his 'eateries' claiming a right to freedom of (not) association. Proof that as a country businesses can not exclude based on color alone.
In the case of Braun's comment above, new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (2022 seated.) is also interracially married and has this in-common with Justice Thomas! Interesting timing for them both should (when) this case comes up to the court.
Braun is definitely clear in suggesting that the "beauty" (his word) of states being in charge of who can marry or not a person of another race is a gem he and others like him desire to be set back in place!
This is not a proper 'beauty' of what diversity stands for. Think of diversity as a multifaceted diamond with a light shining upon it. It's hues adorn it, magnifying its internal connectiveness and. . . beauty. This is not a similar beauty Braun is making a case for, in my opinion.
I'm not trying to advocate for weaponizing the right of association in order to stand it upon its head. Race is a protected class precisely to prevent the law from being stood upon its head.
A business can't discriminate between customers based upon race. Seems like that is clearly as it should be.
Could an advocacy group discriminate between races? Beto O'Rourke was declined membership in the Hispanic Caucus because he is, well, not Hispanic. Could a group of congress members establish a White Caucus or a Caucasian Caucus? Would it be or is it legal for white people to form an organization that advocates for the interests of white people and require that its members be white? Can African Americans form advocacy groups and require that their members be African American?
I don't see any constitutional ground for taking the right to marry away from people based upon race in any possible reading of the constitution. If someone tortures that conclusion out of the constitution they are a liar. All races are entitled to the same rights under our constitution.
I unfortunately don't see such a slam dunk protecting gay marriage in the Constitution. But I would be more than happy to have it pointed out to me.
1883
In Pace v. Alabama , the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that state-level bans on interracial marriage do not violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling will hold for more than 80 years.
The plaintiffs, Tony Pace, and Mary Cox, were arrested under Alabama's Section 4189, which read:
"[I]f any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years."
They challenged the conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Johnson Field wrote for the court:
"The counsel is undoubtedly correct in his view of the purpose of the clause of the amendment in question, that it was to prevent hostile and discriminating state legislation against any person or class of persons. Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice he shall not be subjected, for the same offense, to any greater or different punishment...
"The defect in the argument of counsel consists in his assumption that any discrimination is made by the laws of Alabama in the punishment provided for the offense for which the plaintiff in error was indicted when committed by a person of the African race and when committed by a white person."
Field stressed that Section 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, regardless of race. This meant, he argued, that the law was not discriminatory and that even the punishment for violating it was the same for each offender, whether the person was White or Black.
More than a century later, opponents of same-sex marriage will resurrect the same argument in claiming that heterosexual-only marriage laws don't discriminate on the basis of sex since they technically punish men and women on equal terms.
NOTE: For background see the opinion.
They were liars then and if the court takes a similar opinion today they are liars again today.
I cannot guarantee that the court will not backslide to the 19th century.
What I will say is that it is time for Blue States to openly call into question the legitimacy of the court. It is time for states to hold referendums on the legitimacy of the court and what remedies would restore the court's legitimacy. It may sound crazy but the GOP controlled house held weekly votes on repealing Obamacare when they didn't control the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right of judicial review to the Supreme Court. It may be time to tell them to eff off. It may be time for states with citizens who have bribed Supreme Court members to investigate that bribery.
Frankly, even Thomas should be alarmed. Because nothing changes with these extremist conservatives, they are dedicated to "first principles" of conservatism. That is, they only agreed to what is in the constitution (and it is subject to state control to alter).
So America isn't already divided enough - let's use a massive cleaver and divide it even more. A house divided....etc.
You simply must understand that there are people in this country who are extremely malcontent that people and relationships exist here that they do not personally and collectively approve.
But that could happen anywhere so why is it so rampant and damaging in America?
When you get down to it the glue that held America together for so long was white supremacy. One might notice that even as white supremacy was officially deprecated white privilege remained. Now there is demographic panic. This demographic panic is leading some states to want to unwind the reach of the federal government so they can set the clock back on social issues.
But anyone who starts explaining how a magician tricks his audience will tell you to pay attention to the hand that is drawing less attention. Social conservatives are the useful idiots for a conservative movement of big monied interests. While abortion is banned and gay rights and affirmative action are under assault the administrative state is being dismantled.
Because of the constitution. . . and freedom and liberty and excesses. So now we have a class of conservatives (since 2017) who have dedicated themselves to taking over the republican party (See: Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win it. - Richard Viguerie, 2014.)
The new political civil war in republicanism has been going on for four years now and the MAGAs so far are wiinning!