• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should interracial marriage have been left to the states? (1 Viewer)

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,304
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems that at least one GOPer thinks that interracial marriage should have been left for the states to decide, rather than the decision made by the SCOTUS. It seem to put it in the same category as Roe decision. I sometimes wonder about the thinking process of some congress people on both sides of the aisle, but really can not understand this man's thinking. I guess if one state allowed interracial marriage and a couple married there and then moved to one that did not, you would either be violating the law or not considered even married. Do some politico's not think things through?
 
It seems that at least one GOPer thinks that interracial marriage should have been left for the states to decide, rather than the decision made by the SCOTUS. It seem to put it in the same category as Roe decision. I sometimes wonder about the thinking process of some congress people on both sides of the aisle, but really can not understand this man's thinking. I guess if one state allowed interracial marriage and a couple married there and then moved to one that did not, you would either be violating the law or not considered even married. Do some politico's not think things through?

No. And it's disgusting that anyone thinks racism should be "left to the states".
 
It seems that at least one GOPer thinks that interracial marriage should have been left for the states to decide, rather than the decision made by the SCOTUS. It seem to put it in the same category as Roe decision. I sometimes wonder about the thinking process of some congress people on both sides of the aisle, but really can not understand this man's thinking. I guess if one state allowed interracial marriage and a couple married there and then moved to one that did not, you would either be violating the law or not considered even married. Do some politico's not think things through?

Should interracial marriage have been left to the states?


No. States should not have carte blanche to oppress citizens on the basis of their race.
 
The state right nonsense is so ridiculous and not practical. Maybe so in the early ages when people had more affiliation to their state than country, but you can't basically have a country with basically 50 different set of rules.

If everything was left to the states we would have Taliban type garbage happening in red states like the republicans are trying to do. We can't have different set of environmental rules, worker rights laws, etc in every different state, not practical. imagine if companies had to manufacture differently based on the state they were selling. It's already stupid in some states have 3.2% alcohol sales in grocery stores so manufacturers have to make a special kind just for those, as just one example

Particularly when stupid conservatives Taliban shit goes against the constitution. God damn, republicans can be some shitty people. And the others sit silently by and allow this Taliban type behavior and even vote for those jerks
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered why so many people care about who other people marry.

Especially in a country with such a high divorce rate and prevalence of 2, 3, or 4 marriages.

Two legal adults? Marry whomever you want.
 
I've always wondered why so many people care about who other people marry.

Especially in a country with such a high divorce rate and prevalence of 2, 3, or 4 marriages.

Two legal adults? Marry whomever you want.

Senator Braun is saying that in the same way abortion rights should be left to the states to decide, marriage rights should be left to the states to decide. He is trying to be consistent in his principles but ends up sounding like an utter tool at best or a crypto-racist and segregationist at worst.
 
I don't agree with Braun, but I think it's important to keep clear the difference between a desirable outcome and a Constitutional principle.

Almost everything in law is "left to the states". Advocating that something be left to the states is not necessarily advocating that it should happen. It's about how the system works, and the proper roles of state and federal governments.

Having said that, I would have thought the question was settled with the Loving ruling and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Laws discriminating on the basis of race, specifically laws about who can marry, have been ruled unconstitutional.
 
Hell, why stop at two? While we are at it we should legalize polygamous unions.

Polyamory, certainly. Polygamy? I think that is a bad idea, Nomad4Ever. That just ossifies wealth inequality and makes it so the only people who end up getting married are rich old men and the children of rich old men, to the daughters of other rich old men OR poor young girls who need to marry into the harems of old monied families in order to have any hope of economic security. Every society on Earth that has allowed for polygamy suffered from that very same problem; stagnant dynasties which controlled all the wealth and an army of poor, angry young men with few to no marriage prospects or the hope of having families who often turn to political and religious extremism and terrorism.
 
Hell, why stop at two? While we are at it we should legalize polygamous unions.
I'm on a solid no with that. Once that line is crossed, we legalize and legitimize those wacky cults where the guy has 50 wives and a bunch of kids...and those are host to a litany of abuses.
 
The state right nonsense is so ridiculous and not practical. Maybe so in the early ages when people had more affiliation to their state than country, but you can't basically have a country with basically 50 different set of rules.

If everything was left to the states we would have Taliban type garbage happening in red states like the republicans are trying to do. We can't have different set of environmental rules, worker rights laws, etc in every different state, not practical. imagine if companies had to manufacture differently based on the state they were selling. It's already stupid in some states have 3.2% alcohol sales in grocery stores so manufacturers have to make a special kind just for those, as just one example

Particularly when stupid conservatives Taliban shit goes against the constitution. God damn, republicans can be some shitty people. And the others sit silently by and allow this Taliban type behavior and even vote for those jerks

Hmm… does that mean you oppose any state having ‘assault weapon’ bans and/or magazine capacity limits? It certainly makes no sense to have individual 2A rights differ (vary?) based on which state one happens to live in, work in, visit or travel through.
 
Senator Braun is saying that in the same way abortion rights should be left to the states to decide, marriage rights should be left to the states to decide. He is trying to be consistent in his principles but ends up sounding like an utter tool at best or a crypto-racist and segregationist at worst.
I can see his point when it comes to states vs. federal. The federal government is getting involved in what I believe SHOULD be state issues.

But this isn't the hill to pick that battle on.
 
It seems that at least one GOPer thinks that interracial marriage should have been left for the states to decide, rather than the decision made by the SCOTUS. It seem to put it in the same category as Roe decision. I sometimes wonder about the thinking process of some congress people on both sides of the aisle, but really can not understand this man's thinking. I guess if one state allowed interracial marriage and a couple married there and then moved to one that did not, you would either be violating the law or not considered even married. Do some politico's not think things through?
It definitely paved the way for gay marriage.
 
Polyamory, certainly. Polygamy? Bad idea. That just ossifies wealth inequality and makes it so the only people who end up getting married are rich old men and the children of rich old men, to the daughters of other rich old men OR poor young girls who need to marry into old monied families in order to have any hope of economic security. Every society on Earth that has allowed for polygamy suffered from that very same problem; stagnant dynasties that controlled the wealth and an army of poor, angry young men with few to no marriage prospects or the hope of having families who often turn to political and religious extremism and terrorism.

I think you're correct about the undesirability of polygamy.

However, unless we believe that most people are going to jump at the chance to have polygamous marriages, the social disadvantages of polygamy aren't a good enough reason to tell people what their living arrangements can and can't be. Personally, I really don't think many people would go for it if it were legal.

A close analogy is drug laws. I think frequent use of intoxicating drugs is bad for people and society. Even marijuana, often held up as harmless or beneficial, has some serious downsides when over-used. But I don't think that's a good enough reason to have police chasing people around for having drugs, and then having the legal system ruin their lives forever.
 
I don't agree with Braun, but I think it's important to keep clear the difference between a desirable outcome and a Constitutional principle.

Almost everything in law is "left to the states". Advocating that something be left to the states is not necessarily advocating that it should happen. It's about how the system works, and the proper roles of state and federal governments.

Having said that, I would have thought the question was settled with the Loving ruling and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Laws discriminating on the basis of race, specifically laws about who can marry, have been ruled unconstitutional.

Also, once something is considered unconstitutional, like banning gay marriage. it can no longer be up to the states, because any law they try to pass will be deemed unconstitutional.
 
I think you're correct about the undesirability of polygamy.

However, unless we believe that most people are going to jump at the chance to have polygamous marriages, the social disadvantages of polygamy aren't a good enough reason to tell people what their living arrangements can and can't be. Personally, I really don't think many people would go for it if it were legal.

A close analogy is drug laws. I think frequent use of intoxicating drugs is bad for people and society. Even marijuana, often held up as harmless or beneficial, has some serious downsides when over-used. But I don't think that's a good enough reason to have police chasing people around for having drugs, and then having the legal system ruin their lives forever.

drugs aren't necessarily bad. Millions who enjoy it responsibly would say so, its the abuse, which can happen wiht everything, and addiction that is bad. it's the black market linked to crime and violence that can also be negative. Gambling isn't bad and many people do it and have fun. It's the addicts that cause the problems. And that could be for anything, some people are food addicts and extremely obese, some are sex addicts, etc etc etc. majority of drug users aren't addicts. Majority of gamblers aren't addicts.
 
Also, once something is considered unconstitutional, like banning gay marriage. it can no longer be up to the states, because any law they try to pass will be deemed unconstitutional.

I thought that was what I said in the last paragraph, but yes, I agree.
 
I think you're correct about the undesirability of polygamy.

However, unless we believe that most people are going to jump at the chance to have polygamous marriages, the social disadvantages of polygamy aren't a good enough reason to tell people what their living arrangements can and can't be. Personally, I really don't think many people would go for it if it were legal.

A close analogy is drug laws. I think frequent use of intoxicating drugs is bad for people and society. Even marijuana, often held up as harmless or beneficial, has some serious downsides when over-used. But I don't think that's a good enough reason to have police chasing people around for having drugs, and then having the legal system ruin their lives forever.
Many of the reasons/arguments that exist for legal marriage are tax and health decisions related.

I'm not a tax expert by any stretch, but I would imagine that legalizing polygamous marriages would have tax implications, would it not?

And when it comes to health-related decisions (end of life, etc) can you imagine having 2 wives arguing over whether or not to pull a plug on someone? And both holding the same legal status? Yeesh. I wouldn't want to be in that hospital or courtroom.


*I do think that marijuana should be federally legalized. It is becoming an issue with employment, drug testing, etc. with it being legal in certain states, illegal in others, and illegal federally.
 
I can see his point when it comes to states vs. federal. The federal government is getting involved in what I believe SHOULD be state issues.

But this isn't the hill to pick that battle on.

The 14A makes it quite clear that equal protection is required. Invalidating a contract based on the race of the parties involved is off the table - not up to the several states to decide.
 
Many of the reasons that exist for legal marriage are tax and health decisions related.

I'm not a tax expert by any stretch, but I would imagine that legalizing polygamous marriages would have tax implications, would it not?

And when it comes to health-related decisions (end of life, etc) can you imagine having 2 wives arguing over whether or not to pull a plug on someone? And both holding the same legal status? Yeesh. I wouldn't want to be in that hospital or courtroom.

Again, the possibility or likelihood of difficult questions to untangle doesn't give the government an overwhelming interest in curtailing the rights of individuals.

But I agree in part, though perhaps from a different angle. I don't think the government ought to be involved in marriage one way or the other. It's an contractual arrangment (formally or informally) between individuals. Why does it need government imprimatur?
 
I don't agree with Braun, but I think it's important to keep clear the difference between a desirable outcome and a Constitutional principle.

Almost everything in law is "left to the states". Advocating that something be left to the states is not necessarily advocating that it should happen. It's about how the system works, and the proper roles of state and federal governments.

Having said that, I would have thought the question was settled with the Loving ruling and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Laws discriminating on the basis of race, specifically laws about who can marry, have been ruled unconstitutional.

Jim Crow and slavery was "left to states." That tells you what "let to the states" is worth.
 
Again, the possibility or likelihood of difficult questions to untangle doesn't give the government an overwhelming interest in curtailing the rights of individuals.

But I agree in part, though perhaps from a different angle. I don't think the government ought to be involved in marriage one way or the other. It's an contractual arrangment (formally or informally) between individuals. Why does it need government imprimatur?
I suspect solely from a tax implication standpoint?

Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom