Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Conscious_Ad7105 t1_iydcgz6 wrote

Reply to comment by tdawg-1551 in Josh Hawley voting against inter racial and same sex marriages by SearchingBleach

The ONLY thing I can think of is that like so many other bills ,there was something else buried in the bill that made it unpalatable to the others. But if that's the case they should have said so. It's more likely, as you all have stated, they're pandering to their Neanderthal base. Otherwise, there is zero reason to vote against this, obviously.

26

Apprehensive_Rip8351 t1_iydmg5y wrote

From what I've seen is the argument is the supreme court isn't going to over turn it so there is no reason to pass a new law. But they said the same thing about abortion.

24

KSIChancho t1_iydmyqj wrote

This. And also he probably voted it down based on the same sex thing. How could anyone even legally stop an interracial marriage?

5

RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyeam0u wrote

If overturned they could stop an interracial marriage just like they would a same sex one. It would become nullified and simply not recognized under the eyes of the law anymore. There have been a lot of legal conversations about what would happen to same sex spouses if Obergefell v Hodges was overturned and I assume the same would apply to Loving v Virginia.

7

KSIChancho t1_iyel3t2 wrote

But what makes a relationship interracial? Lol like my wife and I are white but I’m way darker than her and probably have a different racial background if you go back to the early 1900s. So is there some graph that says you’re too dark for this person? Or you’re too light skinned to marry this person?

5

Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf2cny wrote

Whatever the state law banning it says interracial is. If Loving v. Virginia were to be overturned, states would be free to pass laws banning marriages between whatever definition of different races they want to. One drop was the common historical formulation, but who knows what kind of whacky ideas conservative lawmakers would come up with today.

1

RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyellmr wrote

I'm not an attorney and I don't know how racists enforce dumbass laws. I can't help you with your questions, friend.

0

KSIChancho t1_iyen69h wrote

But that’s my point. I think people are looking at this as an easy way to say “ha! Look at the racist and bigoted people!” Instead of objectively finding out the truth. I have no doubt some of these people are okay with being racist and bigoted but some of them may have had very good reasons to shoot this down. We have no idea

−2

Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf2pdn wrote

We do have a good idea. The original bill passed by the house was objected to by many senators for not having enough protection for religious freedom. The current version the senate just passed added protections for religious non profits to not have to officiate or recognize same sex unions. Several of the senators listed above came up with their own amendments that they wanted added that would have afforded even more protection to religious organizations/businesses who want to discriminate against same sex marriages, but those amendments were rejected when Chuck Schumer realized he could get a filibuster proof majority with the way the bill is written now.

1

NoodlesrTuff1256 t1_iyehfwx wrote

What would Clarence and Ginni Thomas do if 'Loving v. Virginia' were overturned?

1

RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyei5f7 wrote

Cry about it, I reckon? I have no idea. There's a lot of internalized hate within the government. And I'm not trying to say it's been likely to have been overturned, but like the other user said, we thought the same of Roe. And LvV used RvW as precedence, as did OvH. That's why people have been concerned.

1

ialsohaveadobro t1_iyeboil wrote

I agree with the other commenter but I want to add that it is true that changing the law wouldn't prevent people from having marriage ceremonies, though. I knew people who were in same-sex marriages before Obergefell (in a red state).

They had their ceremonies and celebrations just the same as usual. It's just that when the rubber hits the road and, say, one of them ends up in the hospital and the other isn't allowed to visit because they're not "really" married-- situations like that-- you see how the legal rights and affects of a state-recognized marriage are unjustly missing.

3

mrs_bookdragon t1_iyf81qi wrote

And also benefits that come with being married. Like health benefits, insurance, etc.

2

oldamy t1_iye8sr4 wrote

The bill is very straight forward and only a few pages long. The senate added religious exemption to it- of course- to get the R vote.

1

Heil_Hipster t1_iydno4s wrote

They probably did. It's just that whoever made this little infographic didn't mention that because it would make the Republicans not look so bad. The intention behind this is to make Republicans look bad. That's the same reason they included the interracial marriage part in this bill. It puts Republicans in a position where if they vote no on the bill, they can say that they voted against interracial marriage even though the Republicans were more than likely actually voting against gay marriage, which is bad still but is not received as badly as voting against interracial marriage.

−2

No_Lies_Detected t1_iydq49h wrote

So you are fully in-the-know of all Republicans and what they mean when they vote for or against a bill? You must be clairvoyant.

−8

SharksForArms t1_iyduj04 wrote

I mean, he is describing an extremely common tactic in Congress. There isn't any clairvoyance required to see it.

3

No_Lies_Detected t1_iydw3hx wrote

No he is.

He can tell these Senators are only voting against the same sex portion. They aren't really racist and voting against interracial marriage! These are some good Christian people by gawd! And they would never do that. They will commit crimes, cheat on their spouses, take huge donations that influence their vote, vote against veterans needs, but enrich themselves on the current military industrial complex (that's where the money is, not helping vets).

But racism? That is where they draw the line and /u/Heil_Hipster knows it!

1

Heil_Hipster t1_iydweks wrote

I never said they were good people. They are just voting with their base. They're base does not want same sex marriage and so they voted that way, consequences be damned. They want to be reelected. This is not some situation where I think they are good people.

4

No_Lies_Detected t1_iydx6bj wrote

> Sure technically. But he was Voting against same-sex marriage, not interracial marriage.

Their base does want interracial marriage though? You KNOW this for a fact. So it has to just be the gay thing and not the racist thing! Got it!

−1

Heil_Hipster t1_iydxtow wrote

I mean more than likely, yes. Considering one of the guys who voted against it has an Asian wife, I would say that he is not actually against interracial marriage. If you were trying to make Republicans look racist, would you not include interracial marriage in a bill that you knew they would vote against because of same-sex marriage being included? It's a very clever strategic move.

2

No_Lies_Detected t1_iydyf4h wrote

I should trust you internet stranger! I'm sure you know your way around racism.

And if your argument really held water, then wouldn't ALL Republicans vote against it? Or was it just these special few that really understood that it was just voting against same sex marriage and not the racist part?

1

Heil_Hipster t1_iyds01a wrote

No. I don't know this for sure. I suppose I like to assume the best about people.

0