GOP Sen. Mike Braun Says Interracial Marriage Should Be Left To The States, backtracks

[Penelope]

People themselves should decide who they marry.

 

[Jets]

Reactionary politics on display…

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm pretty libertarian like that.

I would say that the libertarian view is that the government, on any level, should not be in the marriage business at all.

There is no need for government sanctioned marriage.

 

[occupied]

Cowards all. One of them even fled the room.

 

[rightwinger]

Loving never should have been necessary

The State has no right to dictate who you can fall in love with and marry

Why we can’t trust states

 

[rightwinger]

Earlier during a virtual press conference I misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage, 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.”

U.S. SEN. MIKE BRAUN (R-IND.)


It was a question that was asked multiple times and clearly stated as about interracial marriage. Braun playing stupid doesnt cut it

The reporter asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that 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, it’s hypocritical.”

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Loving never should have been necessary

The State has no right to dictate who you can fall in love with and marry

Why we can’t trust states

There is no connection between love and civil marriage. The state does not care if you are in love or not.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no connection between love and civil marriage. The state does not care if you are in love or not.

True
and they shouldn’t care about who you choose to marry

 

[Mac-7]

Since we already have a topic on this I’m surprised that the mods have not merged the two threads

 

[Rigby5]

It is a shame states screwed up so badly that we need federal oversight. The feds are not good at that sort of thing.

 

[rightwinger]

Braun was then pressed on his view of Griswold v. Connecticut, which found in 1965 a constitutional right to sexual privacy and legalized contraception for married couples. Braun again said that the states should decide matters.

 

[skews13]

Sen. Braun walks back interracial marriage remarks

INDIANAPOLIS — In a media call on Tuesday, U.S Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind) said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in a ruling that stretches back to Loving v. Vi…

www.wane.com

"In a media call on Tuesday, U.S Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind) said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in a ruling that stretches back to Loving v. Virginia in 1967. According to Braun, the decision should not have been made by the country’s highest court and instead been left to individual states. Even though some states had made interracial marriage illegal prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

On Tuesday evening, Braun sent out a statement saying he had “misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage” and condemned “racism in any form” saying there was “no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race.”

Braun was right, but then he walked it back due to pressure from the woke left....why would he be weak like that? Why not stand on your Conservative beliefs and values?? No, the Constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of race; it was perfectly legal for these 2 people to be arrested for the crime of marrying each other....and one must admit, the country was a much better place because of it...
View attachment 619858

Why did Braun bow down to political pressure?? Is it because of that black whore of a judge Ketanji Jackson?? Just because she married a white guy, we are supposed to pretend that the Conservative position against the legalization of miscegeny wasn't the right move?? What good is it to hold Conservative values and beliefs when you are going to just abandon them whenever it no longer looks good to believe them??

Yea, I know the convenient way to get around not looking racist when you rail against the legalization of interracial marriage is to claim "oh, I am just against the federal government telling states not to discriminate against people" -- but then that would mean Braun's statement of “no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race” was complete bullshit, wouldn't it?

Wrong.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Wrong.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So how come Loving vs Va wasn't settled law until the 60's?

Guess the Constitution didn't make it all that clear huh

 

[Papageorgio]

Sen. Braun walks back interracial marriage remarks

INDIANAPOLIS — In a media call on Tuesday, U.S Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind) said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in a ruling that stretches back to Loving v. Vi…

www.wane.com

"In a media call on Tuesday, U.S Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind) said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to legalize interracial marriage in a ruling that stretches back to Loving v. Virginia in 1967. According to Braun, the decision should not have been made by the country’s highest court and instead been left to individual states. Even though some states had made interracial marriage illegal prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

On Tuesday evening, Braun sent out a statement saying he had “misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage” and condemned “racism in any form” saying there was “no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race.”

Braun was right, but then he walked it back due to pressure from the woke left....why would he be weak like that? Why not stand on your Conservative beliefs and values?? No, the Constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination on the basis of race; it was perfectly legal for these 2 people to be arrested for the crime of marrying each other....and one must admit, the country was a much better place because of it...
View attachment 619858

Why did Braun bow down to political pressure?? Is it because of that black whore of a judge Ketanji Jackson?? Just because she married a white guy, we are supposed to pretend that the Conservative position against the legalization of miscegeny wasn't the right move?? What good is it to hold Conservative values and beliefs when you are going to just abandon them whenever it no longer looks good to believe them??

Yea, I know the convenient way to get around not looking racist when you rail against the legalization of interracial marriage is to claim "oh, I am just against the federal government telling states not to discriminate against people" -- but then that would mean Braun's statement of “no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race” was complete bullshit, wouldn't it?

To hold these narrow minded views is mind boggling in this day.

One day, probably not in my lifetime, MLK's dream will come true for all of us.

 

[Desperado]

People should marry in their own species

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Note to my conservative friends, don't fall for the OP's bait thread title.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no connection between love and civil marriage. The state does not care if you are in love or not.

He's talking about the Loving case.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So how come Loving vs Va wasn't settled law until the 60's?

Guess the Constitution didn't make it all that clear huh

That's why we have the amendment process.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

He's talking about the Loving case.

I was responding to this part of his post.....The State has no right to dictate who you can fall in love with and marry

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I was responding to this part of his post.....The State has no right to dictate who you can fall in love with and marry

Oh, right. Carry on.

You were correctly stating how no government should have the authority to dictate the term of marriage or otherwise unilaterally interfere with the marriage contract.