Should interracial marriage have been left to the states?

[vanceen]

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.

I don't disagree with that, but it's not complete. It's undeniable that both drug use and gambling are handled irresponsibly by a large number of people, with resulting serious problems for individuals, families and society.

I just don't think that's a good reason to throw people in jail for having or using drugs. There are better ways to handle the problems that arise than the criminal justice system. Where drug use is a problem, it's a public health problem.

 

[iguanaman]

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 think women should be able to marry as many men as they want. Men cannot be allowed the same privilege because they will abuse it like Warren Jeffs group did.

534 women, children leave polygamist ranch
Officials on Monday announced that 534 women and children — more than twice as many as had been earlier reported — were removed from a polygamist compound and that all 401 children have been placed in state custody because a judge deemed them in imminent danger of physical abuse.
State police earlier made an arrest as they searched the sprawling rural compound built by polygamist leader Warren Jeffs during an investigation into a possible underage marriage.
Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger said the person arrested was not Dale Barlow, the man listed in warrants related to the marriage of an underage girl. The person was charged with interfering with officials, but Vinger said he had no other details.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23993440

 

[btthegreat]

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

I disagree. We have always had 50 states many of which passed taliban garbage type laws and other state legislatures that wrote beautifully crafted compromise reform legislation that became inspired ideas. Sometimes its a very good idea to have states experiment to come up with innovative solutions to problems and challenges based on their own political dynamic and priorities Many of our greatest policy ideas began through state initiatives, including the very first versions of civil rights statutes, women's sufferage, vote by mail, death with dignity laws etc I do think 'states rights' it should always be reframed as a policy decision that Congress considers, to allow for variety and diversity in approach and local control when deemed appropriate, rather than a constitutional 'rights' question.

Its just smart policy not to micromanage state legislatures too much.

 

[Grim17]

No. And it's disgusting that anyone thinks racism should be "left to the states".

My answer is also "no", but when it comes to his answer to the question, I think he got his wires crossed. He had to have because as he stated later, the issue of racial discrimination isn't an issue that allows for debate:

“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.”​

Even if tomorrow a law was passed by the congress, approved by the senate, and signed into law by the president, stating that all federal laws were no longer binding, and it was up to each state whether to adopt each federal law or not, that would not change what is constitutionally protected... Meaning states do not have the power or authority to pass laws that would racially discriminate, that would ban press freedoms, or outlaw the practice of a specific religion... just to name a few.

I know this, you know this, and obviously he knows this... I find it difficult to believe that he actually intended to advocate for something that he clearly knows isn't possible in the first place... But this is politics so that's irrelevant, because a gotcha is a gotcha.

.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Polyamory, certainly. Polygamy? I think that is a bad idea

I'm on a solid no with that.

In my opinion, virtually all the harmful effects of Polygamy come from the strict hierarchical view of gender roles found in extreme religious fundamentalist groups. I have never seen any data that suggests the issue is with Polygamy itself (In fact there is some data that suggests having more parental figures to help raise a child the better. Though obviously that could also be achieved with the more European idea of inter-generational housing as well of course.

Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean Polygyny. While obviously that's the dominant form it takes with religious groups, among young people it's usually multiple bi/pan people, or less commonly multiple gay/lesbian people.

The Polygamy Question

The practice of polygamy occupies a unique place in North American history and has had a profound effect on its legal and social development. The Polygamy Question explores the ways in which indigenous and immigrant polygamy have shaped the lives of individuals, communities, and the broader...

books.google.com

 

[Linc]

Sen. Mike Braun said interracial marriage ruling should be left to states

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…

fox59.com

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?

I believe you mean that Braun is the only gop senator honest enough to answer the question truthfully.

Ask the other 49 gop senators how they feel and watch them squirm and deflect. Ask Manchin.

The gop scotus several years ago destroyed the 14th. The trump court will finish it off.

This is a libertaryan-reich scotus. Get used to it, such as their abortion rulings.

Braun speaks for Indiana, an original kkkonfederste state, home of the kkk in the 1920s.

 

[BirdinHand]

In my opinion, virtually all the harmful effects of Polygamy come from the strict hierarchical view of gender roles found in extreme religious fundamentalist groups. I have never seen any data that suggests the issue is with Polygamy itself (In fact there is some data that suggests having more parental figures to help raise a child the better. Though obviously that could also be achieved with the more European idea of inter-generational housing as well of course.

Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean Polygyny. While obviously that's the dominant form it takes with religious groups, among young people it's usually multiple bi/pan people, or less commonly multiple gay/lesbian people.

The Polygamy Question

The practice of polygamy occupies a unique place in North American history and has had a profound effect on its legal and social development. The Polygamy Question explores the ways in which indigenous and immigrant polygamy have shaped the lives of individuals, communities, and the broader...

books.google.com

I have a group of friends that are in a polyamorous relationship. There is one child in the family. There is no legal marriage in the family. (But there very anti-government in general, so have no desire for any sort of legal status…they’re more the hippie commune types)

I can see and understand what you are saying...and my friends have covered all their legal basis with formal documents and agreements that would cover custody, money, etc. should the group ever split up, someone dies, blahblah...all those legal things.

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this fight so I could care less. My entire view towards legal status is keeping the BAD people from doing things and having laws we can prosecute bad actors with. My concern would be legitimizing and legalizing those cults. Because that's scary stuff there.

 

[AGENT J]

Should interracial marriage have been left to the states?

based on rights and freedoms, of course not, thats why it was eventually fixed and the fed protected our rights as it should

 

[AGENT J]

Hell, why stop at two? While we are at it we should legalize polygamous unions.

This would be just fine by me as along as its consensual adults . . .
the only individual hurdle is working out the contracts . . .proprty rights etc if one person dies etc etc . .very tricky but can be done and its the peoples own risks involved

the second is, theres no legal arguments for it right now that are the same as current marriage, it would be its own new thing and it couldnt be fought for on the basis of discrimination really
but like i said, if people fought for tht right it wouldnt bother me one bit

 

[ttwtt78640]

This would be just fine by me as along as its consensual adults . . .
the only individual hurdle is working out the contracts . . .proprty rights etc if one person dies etc etc . .very tricky but can be done and its the peoples own risks involved

the second is, theres no legal arguments for it right now that are the same as current marriage, it would be its own new thing and it couldnt be fought for on the basis of discrimination really
but like i said, if people fought for tht right it wouldnt bother me one bit

Most of the issues involved also exist in business partnership contracts which have no limits on the number of partners (parties?) involved.

 

[AGENT J]

Most of the issues involved also exist in business partnership contracts which have no limits on the number of partners (parties?) involved.

agreed, a basic outline or format could start there
im guessing people would set it up as a hierarchy and HOPEFULLY the focus would be on the childrens well being if they exist

 

[Buckeyes85]

This would be just fine by me as along as its consensual adults . . .
the only individual hurdle is working out the contracts . . .proprty rights etc if one person dies etc etc . .very tricky but can be done and its the peoples own risks involved

the second is, theres no legal arguments for it right now that are the same as current marriage, it would be its own new thing and it couldnt be fought for on the basis of discrimination really
but like i said, if people fought for tht right it wouldnt bother me one bit

Actually, the property rights would not be a big hurdle. Not hard to split 3 ways what would have been split 2 ways.

But as to the basics of the topic, I have studied the mormon cult ad nauseum, both from it's inception thru the splinter groups like Warren Jeffs. I have also studied other groups that practice polygamy or unwed polyamory. Absolutely -0- (in my opinion) approached anything close to a healthy union, with the women always being the subjugated.

 

[AGENT J]

Actually, the property rights would not be a big hurdle. Not hard to split 3 ways what would have been split 2 ways.

sorry i meant more so that with a marriage its kind of a given . . one partner dies or something else where everything goes
if its muitiples it gets a little tricky especially if theres multiple properties etc etc and maybe they would want the default of its just defined among all

But as to the basics of the topic, I have studied the mormon cult ad nauseum, both from it's inception thru the splinter groups like Warren Jeffs. I have also studied other groups that practice polygamy or unwed polyamory. Absolutely -0- (in my opinion) approached anything close to a healthy union, with the women always being the subjugated.

well i havent i can admit that but when you say "cult" to me none of those were consensual adults more like forced or brainwashed etc etc
as for the women being a subjugation that happens now in same-sex and opposite-sex marriages so thats something of course I'm against and is a concern but is a different topic.
to me it holds no more merit on whether it should be legal or not than anything else people say about interracial or interreligious marriages or age differences etc etc

a concern but not a game ender

 

[RaleBulgarian]

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.

Which issues, in your opinion, is the federal government interfering in?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I think women should be able to marry as many men as they want. Men cannot be allowed the same privilege because they will abuse it like Warren Jeffs group did.

534 women, children leave polygamist ranch
Officials on Monday announced that 534 women and children — more than twice as many as had been earlier reported — were removed from a polygamist compound and that all 401 children have been placed in state custody because a judge deemed them in imminent danger of physical abuse.
State police earlier made an arrest as they searched the sprawling rural compound built by polygamist leader Warren Jeffs during an investigation into a possible underage marriage.
Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger said the person arrested was not Dale Barlow, the man listed in warrants related to the marriage of an underage girl. The person was charged with interfering with officials, but Vinger said he had no other details.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23993440

I don’t get any guy’s desire to have multiple wives. I don’t need two women telling me to stop leaving the seat up.

 

[element94]

More moaning because it counters their desired deplorable white ethnostate.

 

[Cope]

Sen. Mike Braun said interracial marriage ruling should be left to states

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…

fox59.com

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?

So, I am not sure how this being codified into law really has an effect one way or the other? Whether the States allowed it or not, it was eventually coming. Just like same sex marriage/civil union or whatever you wanted to call it.
States rights are paramount to lots of people and while I would LIKE for all the rights NOT given to the Feds, not be taken from the States, I am ok with some of them that have occurred.

 

[Lovebug]

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.

So is alcohol. Drugs are a reasonable comparison though. My sil, i.e., can't visit us in TN, although in her state she has a medical pot card.

 

[Greenbeard]

Having said that, I would have thought the question was settled with the Loving ruling

Ironically the “conservative” position today is that no precedent is safe.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So, I am not sure how this being codified into law really has an effect one way or the other? Whether the States allowed it or not, it was eventually coming. Just like same sex marriage/civil union or whatever you wanted to call it.
States rights are paramount to lots of people and while I would LIKE for all the rights NOT given to the Feds, not be taken from the States, I am ok with some of them that have occurred.

The right to marry someone of a different race, or same sex hasn’t ever legitimately been a state right. It is a constitutional right that SCOTUS affirmed.

 

[BirdinHand]

I don’t get any guy’s desire to have multiple wives. I don’t need two women telling me to stop leaving the seat up.

My husband would agree.

We watched Sister Wives one time and he said something along the lines of “this guy must be insane…who would want more than in PITA”

 

[ecofarm]

Rights are national security and thus federal jurisdiction.

 

[vanceen]

Ironically the “conservative” position today is that no precedent is safe.

Precedents ought not to be 100% safe, otherwise we would still have Dred Scott decision as law. But it should, and generally does, take a very strong argument to overturn precedent.

 

[Lursa]

Sen. Mike Braun said interracial marriage ruling should be left to states

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…

fox59.com

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?

Where does it end? Do we just not have a Constitution? Rights are recognized per state? The govt exists only to tax to build and maintain interstate infrastructure and defense?

 

[VanceMack]

Sen. Mike Braun said interracial marriage ruling should be left to states

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…

fox59.com

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?

If you disagree that the states have a right to dictate law regarding things NOT included in the Constituion (almost like that was an actual written and passed amendment or something), then do you ALSO agree that states have no right passing laws that violate peoples rights SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED in the Constitution?