By - kevinowdziej
Which Senator? Was this during the confirmation hearing?
Republican (obviously) Senator Mike Braun from Indiana.
Whelp. Oh course it's my senator.
I email and fax this turd weekly over his stupid shit. The trash he sends back is even dumber than this take on state's rights.
I'd vote for a literal piece of shit full of peanuts and corn over this fool.
Hmm... I really dont like peanuts but, I think I agree
Dudes a joke. Literally got into politics to line his own pockets despite being a millionaire
You're doing good work, keep it up!
Make sure to vote during May primaries. It's at least a first step to hopefully replacing some of these guys.
Now you have a mission: get a better person elected.
Won’t really matter. All of the cities here are gerrymandered to hell and the rural population is easily 2x that of all the cities in Indiana combined.
Braun probably just secured his re-election with this outlandish statement.
Exactly what I was telling my brother. He won’t be vilified here because he likes Trump and is a rich factory owner. Fuck Braun.
So much this. People calling this state anything but bleeding red are mistaken. The rural, “traditional” communities are only missing the southern accents, everything is pretty much the same.
Gerrymandering doesn't matter for senators....the rest of your point is valid though
It does though, indirectly.
Gerrymandering causes a viking effect on voters who feel their vote didn't matter leading to less votes in the Senate races.
Edit: Viking should be chilling. Lol
The same beautiful state that brought us Mike Pence.
Leaving Indiana is the best decision I ever made in my life. What a shitty, shitty state.
Yeah it’s really been giving TX and FL a run for their money lately.
Yup, to the first black female SCOTUS nominee. Indiana Senator Mike Braun (R), the question was asked repeatedly and he kept digging. He now "misunderstood" the question.
Slight Edit: KBJ is in an interracial marriage as well, btw.
Edit 2 and 3: A correction, this was said at a news conference, I misread an article as saying it was at the nomination when the comments were not. I apologize for adding to the confusion.
Wonder how justice thomas feels about those remarks >.>
He probably agrees with them! Remember, laws do not apply to the powerful. They only apply to those being ruled.
Indeed. How many "pro-life" Republican male politicians have at least one side piece who's had at least one abortion paid for by said "pro-life" Republican male politicians? I saw a new one just the other day.
Mitch McConnell’s wife is Asian.
I don't believe Mitch McConnell should be allowed to be married. It is against my religion for Mitch to have anything in life that isn't suffering.
I have joined a new religion
Mitch clearly shows signs of tortoise DNA and tortoise-human marriage is rightfully illegal
In Thomas' dissent for r gay marriage case he sorta kinda argues against interracial marriage being federally legalized, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Justice Thomas is a fascist far right shill, he doesn't have ethics or feelings, he just has an agenda
It’s a terrible, selfish agenda too. His lust for pudding pops knows no bounds.
I dunno, did Scalia have an opinion on Senators insulting the marriages of SCOTUS nominees? If not then Thomas is up shit creek without a paddle...
Thomas is against Affirmative Action even though it helped him out.
Definitely a pull the ladder up behind him, type of dude.
That is utterly horrifying. This isn't some local whackjob going off on Twitter or a rogue senator losing his marbles, this is a *federal senator* who evidently has a strong measure of public support *and* who's further advocating for state rights to overturn Roe v Wade. In 2022!! What in the actual fuck is happening in the US.
To be clear, he made these statements during a follow up interview with local news. He did not say this during the hearing AFAIK. The reporter definitely did repeat the question asking very clearly if he thought interracial marriage should be a state issue though.
Now [he is saying](https://nypost.com/2022/03/23/sen-mike-braun-criticizes-supreme-court-decision-legalizing-interracial-marriage/) that what he was *trying* to say was that he didn't agree that it was the Federal governments decision to allow interracial marriage.
Funny, that's the same argument his grandparents made when they wanted to keep black people as pets.
It's the same argument. Instead of saying he wants to do it, he's pretending he just doesn't want to be stopped from doing it.
He's just rearranging the conversational furniture and hoping more people like the decor.
“It’s not about racial inequality, it’s about states rights!”
“States rights to do what?”
“To be racially unequal!”
Ya nailed it.
I will use this argument everytime somebody tells me the civil war was not about slavery.
‘it wasn’t about slavery it was about states rights!
States rights to do what?
To have slaves!’
Although I doubt the ones still who say this will even get to that conclusion…..
“It’s a slippery slope! If we take away a state’s right to discriminate based on race, what’s next? Will they treat sexual identity and gender as protected classes that cannot be denied goods or services?!? What will we teach the children?!”
I’ve done this on accident before without knowing this was a “thing”. Basically I had a friend from the south in college and I wasn’t really into politics very much at the time and it never came up.
Anyways, the subject of how history is taught in schools somehow came up and he brought up how history incorrectly framed the civil war as being about slaves when it was really about states rights and all that.
I casually added “yeah rights to have slaves?” and he got very defensive. “You just don’t get it” and the usual pushbacks. Like he was brought up to take it personally that some people he personally had nothing to do with were fighting to have slaves and it was his responsibility to stand up for them.
To be fair, this is literally what the south teaches it's students (that the war was not about slaves and was actually about state's rights, the rest is just pushed by surrounding southern apologists). I thought this for a long time as well because when you're a child you trust the system to teach your the truth and the idea that it wouldn't seems much more crazy than a bunch of people are dumbasses who don't understand history or didn't pay attention in school. They still frame it like it's objective even though it isn't.
So if your state buys the same textbooks as Texas, maybe you should look into what your children are reading in it.
Also states' rights to tell *other* territories and states that they can't ban slavery or not abide by fugitive slave laws, such as the [Fugitive Slave Act of 1850](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850), drafted by an extremely pro-slavery and pro-secessionist (and white supremacist) Virginia Senator named [James Mason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Mason). This was a federal level law forcing free states to return runaway slaves. It wasn't repealed until nearly the end of the Civil War, although it was basically toothless after a while.
Which is really an issue we settled over 150 years ago. But some people just keep wanting to try to fly that flag hoping no one recognizes it for what it is.
“It’s not about slavery, it’s about states rights!”
“States rights to do what?”
“To own slaves!”
>He's just rearranging the conversational furniture and hoping more people like the decor.
What a great phrase.
All right wing arguments can be reduced down to: I want to abuse people so bad it hurts. Why do you like hurting me? You are evil sadists for not letting me fulfill my desires!
I just don’t get it. Why should we have to “allow” this? He’s actually suggesting that the default condition should be a ban on interracial marriage unless decided otherwise? That’s fucking deranged.
He’s saying the federal government shouldn’t have a blanket rule, and it should be up to the states.
The funny thing is this is a perfect example of why this SHOULD NOT be left up to the states. Some things yes sure, but not racial equality.
It’s always about “states rights” until they make a decision they don’t like. No Colorado! you can’t legalize weed! It’s a federal decision. No Vermont, you can’t legally recognize gay marriage, that’s a religious decision! No California, you can’t limit access to firearms, that’s muh second amendment!
Always has been.
They didn't give a fuck about states' rights when they forced the Northern states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law in the 1850s. Then they suddenly started caring after they got their teeth kicked in in the Civil War. These people have always been a cancer.
Most importantly here it should be noted that part of what the Southern states wanted out of the Civil War was for slavery to be mandatory across all states...aka: they didn't give a single fuck about states' rights, and don't for a second let them pretend that's what any of this was about.
Consistency has never been a politician's strong point.
I'd like to see how he'd react if second amendment rights were left up to the state.
Probably OK with it tbh, because then the red states will all have guns and blue states won’t.
Most conservatives were up in arms when blue states (and the city of DC) passed legislation limiting the types of fire arms people can own. And they cheered when the Supreme Court struck down those laws under the Second Amendment.
Don’t assume people like this think logically or consistently on any issue.
There is one consistency:
Rules for thee but not for me.
1) Thou shalt cherry pick.
2) Thou shalt not perform any due diligence or actual research.
3) Thou shalt not back down from an argument, especially when wrong.
4) Thou shalt win all verbal contests by shouting the loudest.
5) Thou shalt insist upon extremely thorough credentials to consider someone an expert.
6) Thou shalt never heed expert advice.
Probably more, but I'm busy.
Edit - I R bad at formatting.
You forgot "Thou shalt grossly compare any inconvenience in my life to the Holocaust".
"Wearing a piece of cloth on my face, is exactly like the Holocaust"- an actual comparison I've seen an idiot try and use
“Thou shalt also decry any reasonable comparison of your own position to the holocaust or Nazis. But keep comparing everyone else to those.”
6 might need an addendum of "unless it comply with thine first commandment"
Just watch. The GOP is about to abandon states' rights and individual freedom.
It was always a smokescreen for their onerous beliefs. The best defense of their was always the fact that the majority was on their side, and so they could say 'let's just let people govern themselves' and watch as prejudice ruled.
Now majority opinion has turned against them and people don't care if others have an abortion or are gay, so they can't just keep the government out of it and watch people choose their side, so they have to get to enforcement and legislation.
If conservatives can’t win democratically they will abandon democracy not conservatism.
Liberals own guns too
as someone living in a blue state, they basically ARE left up to the state for the most part.
He’s saying the federal government shouldn’t have a blanket rule, and it should be up to the states.
The funny thing is this is a perfect example of why this SHOULD NOT be left up to the states. Some things yes sure, but not ~~racial~~ equality.
The answer is the same every time this Confederate whitewashing horse shit shows up: "States rights to do what sir?". This is not a local vs remote issue, this is like Jack the Ripper complaining the murder is illegal and should be left to the individual to sort out. Clearly he wants us to step aside so he can hurt innocents and we need to all say "go fuck yourself with a saguaro".
Hey now, people need to leave Saguaros alone. They're endangered. May I offer some Cholla in its place?
The states have proven MANY times that they create awful laws and need an adult to tell them no sometimes.
(Obviously the federal court system is insanely far from perfect, but they get things right sometimes and are pretty good at being the adult, usually)
Civil rights should never be left up to individual states. Neither should quite a few other things. The federated system of governance was a terrible idea.
the states have proven to not be able to govern themselves. most cant even keep a budget that isnt in deficit and need help from wealthy states and the federal government.
This, anything to do with equality, whether racial, gender, cultural, or otherwise should all be a blanket federal minimum guideline.
"All people are equal, anything to the contrary is illegal and shall not be recognized"
States should be where laws regarding adjustments to the minimum standards should take place. Federal minimum wage is 7.25, if a state has a higher CoL then that state should have an enhanced CoL modifier for their min wage.
That is how it should work imo.
Since you brought it up, let me remind all that the price of everything has been skyrocketing for many years while the minimum wage has stayed the same
This is why I could never get onboard with libertarian "small gubment" ideas. You can't rely on small towns or rural states to do the right thing on their own when it comes to things like racial equality.
It's easy to have a majority of racists in a small town or city make the rules if there isnt a some form of overarching democratic structure that we *all* have a say in.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson answered that question herself:
“Well, senator, that is the nature of a right. That when there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Can we please confirm her for the SC just on that answer alone?
Literally more understanding of the law than anything Coney Barrett has ever said
You see, whether or not we allow institutionalized racism should be left up to the states. Of course, if some states won't allow institutionalized racism, then we need to leave it up to the county, or the city, or the local community - as granular as it needs to be to allow the maximum amount of discrimination. The federal government need only get involved to protect each of the lower levels of government's rights to institute discrimination.
Yup, thats what "states rights" is only ever about. What allows for the most discrimination to happen. For some reason, the right is never concerned about states rights to allow more freedom, just more restrictions.
Love how his argument is that he was *trying* to say the exact same thing that he *did* say lmao
Letting states decide on things like interracial marriage or slavery means some states would *never* do the right thing.
I can list 10 off the top of my head that would repeal every single law guaranteeing equal rights and protections if given the opportunity. Including child labor laws and women voter rights.
The weird thing is that no one asked, he brought it up unprompted
Goes to show how it’s been living rent free in his head all this time
"Liberty and justice for all" doesn't mean fuck all to people these days
Not pets, livestock.
Wtf do these states rights people want? Do they want to be independent then leave and become your own nation.
It's been tried before. How did that work out for them?
I hate to be pedantic, but it was definitely a lot worse than "pets." People spoil and coddle their pets. I think the word you're looking for is livestock.
I fucking love that word 'pedantic'. It rolls off the tongue like an English person saying 'laboratory'.
That aside, you are not wrong. I think legally they were referred to as chattel which is horrifying when you read the definition.
1. An article of movable personal property.
1. A slave.
1. Property; wealth; goods; stock. See cattle
Mega disgusting that people like him are allowed to walk this earth
I want her to ask all these GOP members if they believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. When they invariably lie and say 'yes', follow it up with, 'So you hold the belief that all Americans enjoy the freedom from religion as well?'
Why would they say yes or no to that? They'll all just dance around the question and kind of answer with a talking point their voters will like.
What every “States’ Rights” argument is really about.
The way he says it on tv is even worse.
[Sen. Mike Braun says interracial marriage legalization should be up to states, not federal gov't](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws5-Z8fz3r8)
CiVIL riGhTS sHOuLD hAvE BEeN a STatEs IsSuE
Unconstitutional one at that. But I think the only right they care about is the right to bear arms and control women.
And retain power over non-white Americans.
I mean, yes, that has literally what we've been arguing with the south about since the civil war. They think they should be able to oppress their citizens so long as their white citizens vote for it, and they don't like that the federal government keeps coming in and making them stop.
I'm aware. It's ignorant. The constitution is meant to be a living document that dynamically evolves as the times change. It is NOT a unchangeable set of rules that we are stuck following for eternity...
If it was unchangeable the founders wouldn’t have stuck in there how to change it.
That’s the argument I stick with when people tell me that ‘I can’t change the constitution’
Actually we can and there’s a whole set of rules that tells us how to.
We quite literally have an amendment to cancel another amendment when we ended prohibition
Lmfao, being a racist misogynist isn't a valid point of view in this century.
I mean to some it is.
Clearly that's what his constituents are voting for.
If this wasn't their view, it wouldn't keep getting elected. This type of crap isn't some weird one-off outlier... From Matt Shea and his "if they don't submit to biblical rule, kill the males" bullshit (to say nothing of using his position to stalk and harass political opponents), all the way to everything that dribbles out of Marjorie Taylor Greene's fucking mouth.
This is the modern Republican party. This isn't the party of McCain and Romney, that party is dead. Flushed away with the Obama presidency when they discovered turning their back on the crazies would not keep them in power. When a choice was made to embrace the crazies as a last ditch effort to avoid having to change their platform.
It's working and it will continue to work.
Because in the next election, they're going to regain control. And you know damn well they're going to win the next presidency.
Because no matter how bad it gets, the left will only unite *after* things have been destroyed. And even then, while making a big show of holding our nose to do it.
Meanwhile the right will march in lockstep next to anyone as long as they vote Republican. They vote consistently in every election, every time always. Hell, people on the left will get offended if you so much as call them a democrat, let alone vote consistently.
Enjoy these next couple of years, because things are going to get much worse.
The fuck is he even trying to say here? There’s so much befuddlement and vague half arguments, I feel like a Russian tank caught in Ukrainian mud.
Hmm, where have I heard this argument before? Ah yes, it was when the Confederacy insisted that slavery should be decided at the state level.
The pre-Confederates said that, and then the [Confederate Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States#Slavery) banned states from prohibiting it.
While also including a similar prohibition toward the importation of slaves from the U.S. Constitution except that importation was limited to within the CSA or the various U.S. states, meaning that existing slaveholders within the CSA would be the only owners of slaves and be allowed to trade/sell the enslaved amongst themselves without adding to the population of the enslaved. It was essentially the wealthy planter class cherry-picking what was good for them over anyone else, including within the CSA, and building a monopoly for the wealthy within the CSA Constitution.
How on earth did I never know that.
I mean, I know exactly why, but holy crap.
So much for that "states rights" nonsense, and good riddance.
You were also exempt from serving in the confederate army if you owned a certain number of slaves. They literally sent poor hicks to die for the elites right to own humans as property
Yup. According to the confederates, the confederacy was the first ever nation founded on the sole principle belief that the white man is inherently superior.
They openly stated white supremacy to be the only reason their confederacy exists.
The lost cause bullshit somehow got people to forget actual written and spoken statements by the founders of it.
Similarly, the 14th amendment bans states from violating equal protection.
As a huge states right person, this is absolutely NOT a state right.
Quntservatives believe in diversity of opinion.
“I mean do we ALL have to march in LOCKSTEP with the abolitionist woke-mob?” /s
Every time a conservative says a decision should be left up to the individual states, they are *ALWAYS* omitting the part where they tried and failed to enforce the decision they want at the federal level first.
It's far more insidious than that. The confederacy's constitution didn't allow states to not have slavery. It was a federal requirement. Anyone who says the confederacy was for states rights is a lying sack of shit or an ignorant fucking moron.
Edit: to clarify, the ignorant fucking morons don't include those who learn the truth and grow with that knowledge.
Conservatives and The Wrong Side Of History, name a more iconic duo.
I just don’t understand why Republicans are offended when we acknowledge their racism.
They don’t like being called “racist” because it sounds like you’re insulting their character. They don’t mind being racists with reprehensible character, they just hate having it pointed out to them.
The sole, driving force behind the "CRT" animosity.
Silly. CRT is when you acknowledge that the *concept* of racism exists!
And don’t you dare acknowledge the concept of white privilege. That’s a myth, and they worked just as hard—*harder*—than anyone else!
There are two things Republicans can't stand:
1. Being called racist
2. Black people
At this point, a Republican representative could turn up in full on Nazi uniform, state that the world needs a fourth reich, and everything that goes along with that, and I'd just nod, and figure it's par for the course for the modern Republican party.
And he'd get re-elected.
And then run for President in 2024 with Marjorie Taylor Greene as his running mate. And win.
It's incredibly sad that this is a possibility.
They're the ones who mourn on the anniversaries of the bombing of Pearl Harbor and D-Day, because it was the beginning of the end for their man Hitler.
I could be mistaken but I swear there was some congresswoman who quoted Hitler during a speech when the whole "stolen election" stuff was going on. She said something along the lines of "like Adolf Hitler said, the youth are our future" but I'm not entirely sure if she was in Congress
You are not mistaken. Totally a congresswoman, Mary Miller of Illinois, on the steps of the capital, said "Hitler was right about one thing, the youth are the future. " aaaaaaand she totally supported the stolen election lie.
She led up to it with the line "hitler was right"
And people still don't care like wtf
At this point, a republican can come out and say he grabs women by the pussy, threaten Ukraine to hack his own opponent, tell people that white supremacists are also good people, openly lie about election results, and get more republican votes than any in history, and I'd just nod and figure it's par for the course for the modern republican party.
They aren't even trying to hide it anymore...
Bc they have faced no consequences before for saying that shit, so they’re becoming bolder
Make nazis afraid again
They never were. They just cut a deal bought some time and have come back with a vengeance.
You know how they say if you don’t finish you antibiotics then the infection comes back worse and sometimes what’s left is now resistant to the antibiotics? It’s kind of like that.
They never were. Remember a few years ago when [Rand Paul said](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html) that he thinks states should have been allowed to continue Jim Crow if they wanted to?
As a human being who thinks let people love and marry who they want to love and marry this sent chills through my spine. As a black woman married to a white man this sent chills through my spine
As the direct descendent of concentration camp victims and refugees, this sent a chill through my spine.
As a random dude I didn't get chills but this is fucked
As a modern day human, this sent a chill through my spine.
Not trying **AT ALL**. We should all be very frightened.
Braun has never hidden it
What the actual fuck? Why can’t this person be removed for even suggesting this? This points to a much deep rooted issue
Because there's a little bit of plausible deniability.
One can argue that the question of legality in this matter is not a power granted to the Federal Gov, right or wrong. Someone could have this debate in an academic manner, but he's not doing that in good faith.
It's actually a funny argument because someone in the GOP (Romney I think) argued that marriage equality (gay marriage) should be a federal issue because marriages are recognized in all states even though they originate in 1 state. This was a run-around the state's rights issue of the GOP in an attempt to maintain a federal ban on gay marriage that would supersede state's ability to recognize gay marriage with in their own state.
TLDR: GOP only cares about state's rights when they can use it to get what they want.
>GOP only cares about ~~states rights~~ *anything* when they can use it to get what they want.
The difference in what *fiscal responsibility* means during their terms and democratic terms comes to mind.
Why. The. Fuck. Is this still a political conversation in 2022? It is so nonsensical and really points out who hasn't left the cave yet.
The most disgusting part of this is that saying something like that should be the end of his career in government....but it won't be. He'll be re-elected.
To be fair, they’re also going after gay marriage and, ironically, birth control. Once they teed up Roe I knew birth control would move up on the to do list.
Why? It's not like that's a new position for republicans. They're just being open about it now.
I wonder if Mitch McConnell has any thoughts on his colleague’s assertion that states should have the right to declare his interracial marriage illegal.
Nah that’s fine. They’re probably more worried about about the black and brown people
Yeah, rightwing racism is weird, don't get me wrong, they're still racist towards Asians, but it's different, and there's this weird positive racism they engage in, where they worship the intelligence of Asians, but also make up stories about how cruel and inhumane they are.
The random shit I heard from old timers talking about Asians (as best I can remember) "There's just something different about them, they don't hesitate to torture their own, or to genocide another, they just don't value life."
Somehow European nations, and ancient Rome are viewed through rose tented glasses. Sure, they'll talk about some of the horrors of the past, but not the way they so critically review Asia.
> there's this weird positive racism they engage in, where they worship the intelligence of Asians, but also make up stories about how cruel and inhumane they are.
They found the "good ones".
This is only but so true. For pale-skinned Asians, what you say may be more accurate, but don’t forget that there are just as many dark-skinned Asians, and they do not get the same treatment here in America. My wife is a very dark-skinned Asian woman from SE Asia and over the past ~2 years has seen a marked increase in racial discrimination, and outright verbal assaults directed toward her in public, all without provocation. The culprits are not not older gentlemen. She’s one of the most intelligent and cultured people I know, but it’s not uncommon for people to treat her, often mockingly, like she’s stupid or incapable of basic human functions, and it is pretty disgusting when you see it happen.
Not to go off on some tangent, but it often seems that we, in America, tend to think of an Asian person as someone from China, Korea, or Japan where their skin is more pale, when there are just as many dark skinned Asian peoples. The treatment that darker skinned Asian people receive in America is quite different from that of lighter skinned Asian people. Not to say one is treated “worse” than the other, but do get viewed and treated differently
Most anti-miscegenation laws specifically forbade marriages to "negroes."
You mean between a human woman and turtle?
Rules for thee and not for me
We’re close to the last chapter of this Choose Your Own Reality book,
It really feels like the US is snowballing lately, everything I hear is worse than the last thing I heard
As a young American in an interracial couple, I am now feeling fears I've never felt before. I'm scared, for the both of us. And the worst part is I know that it's only gonna get worse.
I remember when Tommy Bryant in the Alabama state congress called a black female congressional he worked with a House N-word and 6 hours later everybody had already forgotten
“No bro. They’re taking it out of context bro. It’s about states rights bro. Trust me bro. He’s not racist bro 😭”
A state’s right to do what, you disingenuous pieces of shit? Fuck outta here.
They won't be happy until it's 1820 again.
Republicans: "it's a smear from the left that were all racists and don't think black people should be treated equally! We absolutely do not believe any of that!"
Also Republicans: "So the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided black people should be allowed to marry white people"
During a hearing of a Black woman married to a white man, no less. Horrible.
that is why it was brought up. The implication.
Trying to get a rise out of her to make an argument she is too unstable and emotional....
But surprisingly didn't care about someone being super emotional about liking beer
Damn bro what Black woman hurt you. Hahaha hahaha. Asshole.
Oh, Indiana. Please change.
Republicans are pulling a bill that would have raised Indiana’s minimum marriage age from 15 because a Democratic proposal to repeal the state’s ban on marriage equality got attached.
According to the AP, Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) refused to call the marriage bill to the floor after it came to light that Indiana Rep. Matt Pierce (D) wanted to propose an amendment to end the state’s same-sex marriage ban, which was already declared invalid by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
The thing I keep coming back to is why the fuck does anyone care who other people marry
How does one ban a miscarriage exactly
Edit: hey whaddup I’m Jared I’m 19 and I never fucking learnt how to read
Your the best
Hopefully that senators kid will marry out of their race. Karma, baby
I honestly am one of those freedom loving weirdos that is always talking about government intrusion and whatnot, reducing the scope of government authority to the bare essentials- but even I cannot grasp how these supposed "patriots" think that allowing states to infringe upon individual rights somehow equates to more personal freedom.
I am 13 years in with a interracial marriage and I will proudly say GO FUCK YOURSELF SENATOR!!!!!
May it be long and happy
America, you're re moving backwards...
They make a great point as to why a strong federal government is important.
This is what I don’t understand, if everything should be left up to the states then aren’t we basically 50 different countries? What makes us a country if all of our governing is completely separate?
Because the military industrial complex and financial sector wants as many tax payers as possible.
So the blue states can fund the red states shenanigans without having any say in their fascist desires.
Guy should be knocked out. In a video game Straight the fuck up.
The fact that this could even be remotely up to debate feels scary af. The economic and social instability hasn’t settled for years and this makes it look like it’s not even getting any better.
I’ve been in an interracial relationship for 10 years and part of me really feels like it’s time to call my losses and head for Europe after all, rather than wait until half of this country fully turns on the other half with no remorse.
I just watched another Republican man-splain "3/5ths of a person" to a black woman...
to a black woman who’s expertise includes racism in the legal system too.
Exactly! I was screaming at the TV... I'm sure she is very well aware of all the details.
I hate that this is in the national stage again, but at the same time I like that it's there because it looks so ridiculous as a talking point that people will stand back and realize how stupid it is to continue flip-flopping on same-sex marriage.
Racist fucks. Remove them all and let em rot. Disgusting human being.
I think other states should be able to nullify his electoral win and kick him out of his senate seat
Blows my mind that there are even regulations about marriage.
In certain states republicans fought to keep child marriage legal,
For tradtion and so soldiers can get married...so
That attitude right there, mr senator; is the perfect argument for the dissolution of states rights entirely....
“States rights” started as a justification for slavery, and ever since has been used as a means to create a race to the bottom for all but the billionaire ownership class.
Why are some of the stupidest Americans serving in the Senate? Whom are they serving?
This is deliberate.
Corporations put people like Boebert and Greene in congress so people are distracted by the insane clown hate circus and don't pay attention to being robbed blind.
Also this guy definitely jerks it to interacial porn
Within 6 years, the concepts of "gaffes" and "quiet parts" disappeared from United States culture.
You might be a racist when...