GOP senator says he'd support Supreme Court overturning decision that legalized interracial marriage

[JohnSJ]

"According to The Times of Northwest Indiana, Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) told reporters in a conference call that he would support the Supreme Court overturning the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage.

"Braun initially limited his claim to the national right to abortion established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision he hopes the current, more conservative, Supreme Court will overturn in coming months when it rules in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization," reported Dan Carden. "But, when asked by The Times, Braun admitted there are many Supreme Court decisions he believes improperly established federal rights that would be better handled on a state-by-state basis, including Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage, and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) establishing a right to privacy concerning contraceptive use."

"We're better off having states manifest their points of view, rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did," said Braun. He added specifically that he is fine with interracial couples getting married in one state only for another state to refuse to recognize their marriage: "This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh-in on these issues through their own legislation, through their own court systems. Quit trying to put the federal government in charge."


https://www.rawstory.com/mike-braun/

[msongs]

1. so death camps are ok for Indiana but other states can decide for themselves? nt

[regnaD kciN]

2. "Slavery should be a state-by-state choice..."

[TreasonousBastard]

6. That was one of the original states rights raison d'tre, was it not?

[Mike Nelson]

3. Hmm...

... that idea will will get bipartisan opposition in the Supreme Court!

[AZLD4Candidate]

4. So, we're back to nullification and states rights again?

[czarjak]

5. Bottom line. The thought of race-mixing at any level is unacceptable.

[Buckeyeblue]

7. He stepped in it big time.

And by doing so he made the overall point about why civil rights cannot be a state issue.

[samnsara]

8. its hard to imagine that in 1967 states banned this!!

[Hekate]

18. I once worked with a woman, half-Filipina/half-Irish/ 100% gorgeous. Several years older than I...

I was born in 1947, to give you some range. At the time of her birth in California, California did not allow interracial marriage.

I may have mentioned once or twice (or a thousand times) that my upbringing in Hawai’i has made it just about impossible for me to actually grasp what the point is in having laws like that. Oh yeah I could give you some kind of socio-historic answer, but that’s not the same.

Speaking of the point of things — what is the earthly point of that legislator’s existence?

[oasis]

9. Mike Braun making a move toward GOP 2024 presidential consideration?

[Baked Potato]

10. Trial balloon. Building GOP dream plank. Nt

[Sneederbunk]

11. Clarence Thomas may ponder that one.

[Groundhawg]

12. Its hard to believe that even a rethuglican would support this.

[LenaBaby61]

13. Not really. The GQP US Taliban Putin Party is growing more unhinged and crazy by the day.

[newdayneeded]

14. Gosh!!

Because this is by far the #1 problem we face in the US!!!11!1

/Heavy Sarcasm

[haele]

15. Commerce clause. Marriage with a license is a contract.

Common law marriage may be different, but if one state issues a marriage license, all other states must recognize it.
So it's not up to the states if a couple married in one state is still married when they move to another state.

Stupid old racist.

Harle

[SouthernLiberal]

22. I live in South Carolina

Back when some states had authorized same sex marriage our Republican governor announced that not only could two people of the same sex not get married here, but if they had gotten married elsewhere they could not be married here.

The commerce clause did not matter. The whole constitution did not matter.

Oh, he did shut up when someone reminded him of these things, and that SC would lose the lawsuit

[bif]

16. Once again, building a bridge to the 17th century!

[struggle4progress]

17. Another GOP admirer of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor!

If these people keep heading towards LaLa Land, we'll need a new version of the Nuremberg Tribunal

[Volaris]

19. 'Quit trying to put the federal government in charge.' Omfg.

Supremacy Clause, you dimwitted twatwaffle.

[maxsolomon]

20. Way to go, Indiana. You must be proud.

Exact same argument used by Confederates to defend Slavery.

But, hey, ABAD: Anyone But A Democrat.

[twodogsbarking]

21. With genetic testing for everyone. Free of charge.