Interracial Marriage to be protected by Senate (Yes, we need to protect it from the SCOTUS)

[Johnny2X2X]

Last edited Tue Nov 15, 2022, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2022/11/14/bipartisan-senate-group-says-it-has-the-votes-to-codify-same-sex-and-interracial-marriage/

Not to take away from the fact they're about to protect gay marriage, that's a huge deal that I am thrilled about.

But I don't think people understand how extreme this SCOTUS is. Along with the gay marriage protections, the Senate is including codifying interracial marriage protections. Think about that for a moment. We have a Supreme Court that is so extreme and outside the mainstream, that Congress is acting to protect interracial marriage from it. And one of the justices they have to protect it from is in an interracial marriage.

Absolutely crazy we ended up with a 6-3 extremist advantage when the party of the presidents who named the 6 have lost 7 or the last 8 popular votes.

Our Congress is moving to protect fundamental rights from the Supreme Court... I cannot even fathom how we got here.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. To even think Clarence needs protecting...

After he sided with the Conservative Court to strike down much of the Voting Rights Act regarding pre-clearance based on race that allowed him and his parents to vote. As he is about to strike down Affirmative Action that enabled him to attend prestigious schools he otherwise would have been barred from attending.

Ole Clarence got his opportunities in life. To hell with the rest.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. No doubt he would carve out an exception for he and his traitor wife

Grand father them in or something.

I get gay marriage getting the headlines, it's a huge deal. And the gay couples I know are really worth celebrating, I'm going to be thrilled with this.

But the fact we're protecting interracial marriage from the Supreme Court of the United States should be setting off alarm bells everywhere. What the hell is next? Brown vs the Board of Education on the chopping block?

We have 5 members on the SCOTUS who are far far to the Right of even extreme Republicans. And another who is just your normal corporations are people Republican. They are a threat to every fundamental freedom we hold dear.

[Lovie777]

4. Most of the positive achievements moving forward .....

in the past 50 years or so, i.e. voting rights, women rights, civil rights, marriage equality both for interracial and LGBT, Brown vs. The Board of Education, Affirmative action, et al are on the chopping block with these 6 asshole GQP/RWer justices because their gawd commands it.

[Johnny2X2X]

5. Everything is on the table with these nuts

Things that are 100 years settled law could pique their fancy. They picked the most awful human beings imaginable to be on the Supreme Court, they're like internet trolls. I think we cannot even begin to imagine the freedoms they'll target next. The Constitution literally means zero to these 5, they'll interpret it just to hurt people because that's what they think is fun to do.

[wnylib]

34. Republicans have been pushing setbacks

in those areas for decades, long before they got the Evangelicals in their camp. I can remember comments from the right back in the 70s about turning back the clock on all things liberal starting with FDR programs and moving on to more recent (at that time) things like Roe, desegregation, and women's rights.

The marriage of the right with Evangelicals developed under Reagan with Falwell's Christian Coalition.

[plimsoll]

9. Don't give Roberts that much credit.

He was one of the big movers to shut down voting rights. We think he’s not as partisan, but he’s more the velvet glove for their iron fist. Sadly Gorsuch might be closer to the “center” than Roberts, he’ll vote against the GOP when the law says their wrong in black and white.

[mountain grammy]

11. Worst umpire ever.

[90-percent]

32. roberts around 2005-2008?

he influenced some ruling that NOW THAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION NO LONGER EXISTS IN AMERICA, We no longer need many portions of the voting rights act. Red States immediately past racially discriminatory voting laws.

I think he might have been wrong about America being racially harmonious and equal?

-90% Jimmy

[plimsoll]

42. Well he is on the courts wrong wing.

[wcollar]

21. No, you're missing the point, Thomas has been plotting for this.

He wants interracial marriage banned. He's too much of a coward to get a divorce. It's his only way out.

[LeftInTX]

3. Wish we could protect voting!!!

Seriously, I thought even the GOP would want a bit of something. They did pass that presidential electors thing.....
Still the GOP is free to gerrymander and make voting extremely difficult in every state.

Look what they did in GA:
Runoff - is now 4 weeks after the election (no voting by mail) In 2020 it was 8 weeks or so.
Five Days of early voting (Can't remember how many days it was in 2020)
Voter Suppression, voter suppression, the USSC doesn't care...

[yardwork]

6. Unfortunately, we probably don't have 60 votes to pass it in the Senate.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. They have the votes

This was a bipartisan group, they have the 10 Reps they need.

[IronLionZion]

8. Even our Vice President is in an interracial marriage

President Obama was the child of one. It's deplorable that RW extremists want to take this away.

[LittleGirl]

15. I'm not only in an interracial marriage

But I’m married to an immigrant. You (whoever) want to tell me that my marriage will be illegal? Please. It won’t happen on my watch.

[wnylib]

35. A genealogical study of the politicians

who oppose interracial marriage could produce some fun results. Looks like a good project for Henry Louis Gates.

[IronLionZion]

36. I love the white supremacists who took DNA tests

and found out they're not as "pure" as they thought.

[demigoddess]

38. +1

[DFW]

10. It is an outright scandal

A major country's legislative branch has to protect the population from the judicial branch.

[Johnny2X2X]

14. Exactly

Instead of the SCOTUS protecting people's rights from legislative overreach, we have the legislative feeling compelled to anticipate the next set of rights the activist court wants to take away from the people and acting to protect them.

Insane. And there are no limits with this court. They are originalists, there are all sorts of insane laws they could say have standing.

[Marthe48]

12. I worry my head off about people I know

Whether they are single, living together, married. None of us are safe, except that small cadre calling the shots. And they are venal and savage enough to turn on each other.

[Fla Dem]

13. I would guess McConnell will be supporting this bill.

[Joinfortmill]

16. Justice Thomas, they don't like you either.

[IronLionZion]

17. Uncle Clarence isn't getting any younger

they figure he'll die eventually

[David__77]

18. It should be protected in statute regardless of current court composition.

Reliance on court ruling isn’t the best approach, in my opinion.

[Johnny2X2X]

19. Truth to this

But we have relied on the court for thousands of rulings that protect people's rights throughout our nation's history. Interracial marriage is being protected because the SCOTUS has signaled other rights are in their crosshairs.

[David__77]

20. Yeah I guess it would be challenging to make all those statutory changes.

In the case of marriage, I’m guessing smarter Republicans want it off the table because they don’t want another situation of blowback if the court reversed its marriage rulings.

[Johnny2X2X]

22. That's exactly what's happening

10 or so Republicans want to save the rest of the party from itself.

[RedSpartan]

23. Notable that this will only guaranatee that the federal gov't recognizes these diverse marriages.

Of course this is critically important for federal benefits of all kinds, SS, Medicare, VA, etc.

But the individual decisions on granting marriage licenses is still left to the states. That's the concession to get the votes, really. Backwards red states can and will still refuse to issue licenses or recognize diverse marriages. Which, quite frankly, will only continue those states' slide into irrelevancy as they are abandoned by Gen Z and beyond.

[barbtries]

24. and abortion rights hopefully?

is that possible

[Farmer-Rick]

25. My concern is protecting against child labor being reinstituted

The Federalist Society is very pro child labor.

"The end result of child labor laws is ultimately not child protection but prohibiting children from using their innate potential to earn their own money."

Is their opinion. There website is filled with anti-child labor arguments and opinions.

I bet they were behind that pro child labor slogan of the early 1900s: "Children were made for factories and factories were made for children."

I think the student loan thing is part of that mentality. Let's make money off of your children. You keep popping them out and we'll take advantage of them when they first enter the workforce. We'll use their interest payments to hide the lost revenue from the tax cuts for the rich. With overpriced loans that will take the rest of their lives to pay off because of ever compounding interest, they will be a profit center their entire lives.

That's really why the right wing had their panties in a twist over student loan forgiveness. It brings to light the moral failure of using, in this case almost grown adults, as a means of profit and tax offsets. If they can use our college kids for profit, why not your teenagers, preteens and 8 year olds?

[kcr]

37. I agree

I worry that too many people think it is a relic of the past, so there's no need to be concerned about it. Others don't seem to think it's a big deal. Even here at DU, when anyone posts on the subject, there will almost always be multiple posts arguing for child labor because the kids need the money. Seriously.

[Farmer-Rick]

40. Oh wow,

I had no idea that that excuse to abuse children has gotten even onto this board.

It is pernicious and immoral.

Years ago, I had arguments with pro child labor advocates but they were from foreign countries where they still allow child labor. They said giving up child labor would destroy their culture. A culture that requires child labor is an immoral culture anyway.

Advocates for child labor don't realize they will be competing for those jobs filled by little children. And because children are so easily manipulated, their wages would be a pittance. And inturn this would lower all wages and it does in countries that allow child labor.

[NYC Liberal]

39. The Child Labor Amendment is still pending and only needs 10 more states.

Eight of the states that haven’t ratified have Democratic legislatures. It could be done if there was a push for it.

Section 1. The Congress shall have the power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Labor_Amendment

[Farmer-Rick]

43. Oh, yeah the Federalist Society was

Jumping for joy when the Supremes overturned those laws. There are still opinions about them on their website. I can't believe states are still dragging their feet about the amendment.

I had no idea how awful the supremes in the past were until I read up on child labor.

Seems once a right wing radical majority gets on the Court they start legislating from the bench and never stop until outnumbered.

[NYC Liberal]

44. Complacency. I think people haven't thought it was necessary for a long time.

Well, it is now. We need to do everything to stop the regression.

[LaMouffette]

26. Keep pouring on the cray-cray sauce, rightwing nut jobs! The more people you alienate, the more

people you recruit for the Democratic Party and the more you rile us up and get us out to vote.

It's almost as if the Repubes want to fail as a party, or maybe they're just flailing around and doubling down on the racism because they don't know how to extricate themselves from the racist, misogynistic, homophobic hole they've dug for themselves.

[dsc]

27. that bill would protect both interracial and same sex marriage

if a marriage is legal in the state in which it was performed it must be accepted by all states and the feds is what the bill says. Though it does exclude pologomy.

[Johnny2X2X]

29. It does exclude polygamy

That had to be made more explicit for it to get the votes it needed.

[Farmer-Rick]

41. Well that's good

Every country that condones polygamy, seems to have a serious child abuse problem too. Not just child brides and child rape but boys frequently abandoned and neglected. Don't know why but the 2 seem to go hand in hand.

[Lemon Lyman]

28. It's Insane

President Obama got 2 SC justices in 8 years. tfg got 3 in 4 years. Nuts.

Remember when a vacancy opened up in 2016...r's left it open. Then they were talking about how, if HRC won the presidency, they'd just leave it open.

[keithbvadu2]

30. How would Clarence (Ginni) Thomas vote?

How would Clarence (Ginni) Thomas vote?

Most of her right wing associates would not have her and Clarence over for supper.

[Johnny2X2X]

33. He'd vote against interracial marriage

Because owning the libs is more important to him than his own marriage.

Really, if they ended protections for interracial marriage, it would go back to the states.

[world wide wally]

31. In Politics, like in music and comedy, timing is everything.

Then we have to throw in some cheating by McConnell.

[49erCat]

45. Good. I am in one.

Shame this even needs to be a consideration.

[Skittles]

47. welcome to DU

yes it is indeed a shame, a real travesty......

[Skittles]

46. nice, now how about a Respect for Women Act

yes indeed

[Hermit-The-Prog]

48. The Subversive 6 make it the Extreme Court and a threat to the nation.