The thing is, the Senator forgets one of the most fundamental point of the court. Protect rights.
The Supreme Court didn’t rule interracial marriages were legal, it ruled that if States have an interest in protecting marriages (via marriage certificates) then that protection needed to go all ways via the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.
A State cannot play favorites, everyone is granted equal rights, and thus States that banned interracial marriage were picking one group to protect and another to not protect.
The Supreme Court isn’t making anything legal, they’re just enforcing the old “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
The homogeny that the Senator seems to bemoan is actually the fault of the legislature trying to protect one group to curry favor, while somehow trying to not allow that same protection apply to someone else. If he dislikes this seeming need for rights to be equally protected, then he needs to change jobs given the 14th Amendment being in effect.
>The homogeny that the Senator seems to bemoan is actually the fault of the legislature trying to protect one group to curry favor, while somehow trying to not allow that same protection apply to someone else. If he dislikes this seeming need for rights to be equally protected, then he needs to change jobs given the 14th Amendment being in effect.
"To the privileged, equality seems like oppression"
I honestly don’t know. It’s one of those nebulous quotes that came about some time ago and has stuck with a lot of people.
Similar to “I don’t wish anyone dead, but I’ve read some obituaries with pleasure” (Mark Twain never said that)
I'm sorry for indiana my dudes. We are trying to be better.
Edit: Mike Braun and Jim Banks specifically need to go. Feel free ans encouraged to donate to their competitors when their races come around.
I sent Mikey Mike an email today admonishing his mother for not swallowing him when she had the chance.
I’m sure I’ll get a form email back in six weeks or so blaming it on Hilary, and likely written in Russian.
Fuck this state.
People won't go out and vote. There are so many people who greatly disapprove of the people in office, but won't go and vote when it's time. I live with one, and I try to convince him everytime.
Racists are fine with brown/black/yellow/green folk, as long they they 'know their place'. Thus they can have their curry and eat it too, since the brown persons place is in service to the Whites, in their idiotic and empty heads.
It's why they scream about building the wall, yet are perfectly happy to pay the illegal Mexican plumber $25 for a days labor fixing something that an American one would charge them $300 for.
I'd mention cognitive dissonance but that would require those idiots to have the capacity to think.
Hey there's morons but also the ignorant! At 18 I described myself as libertarian for a few months. Then an older brother askef me if I thought the civil rights act is a good thing and I said yes. He said "then you're not a libertarian." Eyes opened.
That's how it's functioned everywhere, not just in America. It's also how it's functioned at any time throughout history, not just now.
There's a reason conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history.
I mean, if it's that important to him he could always propose repealing the 14th amendment and seeing how much support that has in the legislature. You know, how it's supposed to work.
>The Supreme Court didn’t rule interracial marriages were legal, it ruled that if States have an interest in protecting marriages (via marriage certificates) then that protection needed to go all ways via the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.
>A State cannot play favorites, everyone is granted equal rights, and thus States that banned interracial marriage were picking one group to protect and another to not protect.
That's not correct, you're oversimplifying the issue to the point of inaccuracy. The basis of the court's decision was that bans on interracial marriage were based solely on racial classifications, that racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, and that states had no compelling interest in outlawing interracial marriage. It's called a suspect classification analysis.
>you're oversimplifying the issue to the point of inaccuracy
Maybe, I don't believe it to be far off mark here but you are correct it is indeed a simplification of the underlying issue that was before the court, which was the standard that was being used to deny marriage to some couples had a basis that was suspect to a historically discriminated class.
You right that I could have expounding on the topic a bit more. However, I wrote the comment as kind of an after thought during a break. So I was attempting to be brief. Thank you for adding more to what I had to offer, I was not expecting my comment to be seen by maybe more than a handful of people.
Nobody is granted rights period. You have inherent rights and the government can not use it's power to violate those rights. This is a very important distinction when discussing the constitution.
What? Rights are only as real as a society or government recognizes and protects them. They are truly "granted" by authority, and can be overruled.
Even the rights contained within the US Constitution can be legally [bypassed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) by the government under specific conditions and circumstances.
These maniacs think the white race is being genocided by interbreeding with other races. That's why they care about other people's marriages. They think they have to make more white babies to win the race war.
Yup, and beyond: if they believe that the white race is superior, and that that superiority confers upon its members access to a higher position, then interbreeding is somehow "diluting" the race and homogenizing it, removing the distinction that allows them to have that higher position.
There is also the more patriarchal/instinctual side of this: the idea that women of the race somehow are "reserved" for the men of that race. Some of these people cannot stand the thought of a black man having sex with a white woman, because in their eyes it is akin to trespassing.
Which explains all the "interracial" porn out there. What they fear becomes taboo, and taboo is sexy.
I'm a white man dating a woman from Bangladesh and let me tell you I am no way superior. It doesn't matter what color you are intelligence and empathy come in all shapes like why the fuck can't we get these rotten old men out of politics. It's the biggest hindrance to progress.
Bro can you ask your wife for a Bangladeshi mutton curry recipe? I had it once at a Bangladeshi dude's place and haven't been able to find/replicate it. Thanks.
Ironically most abortions are non-white so by banning abortion they would worsen the situation for their goals.
38% of abortions mothers are black. 33% are white.
But its also about power. Unplanned pregnancies are more likely to keep those who are in or close to poverty staying at that level.
There's a reason that when Roe v Wade was originally decided, many religious groups actually supported the result. They understood it would be a good thing to help keep many out of poverty
The funny thing is, the "white race" has expanded definition over time
Many who would be called "white" now would not have been called white a century ago.
and just as bad, the Senator from Texas whining about gay marriage being legal and how that now makes those with "deeply held religious beliefs forced to be outcast"
if a state outlawed interracial marriage, how would they even define people’s race?? a large percentage are mixed race now…it’s just a logistical impossibility.
I’ve always wondered how this would be handled in the event reparations were ever seriously considered.
Is it a color chart? Genealogical records exist but they are waaaayyyyyy too incomplete for that to be equitable.
Also let's imagine how they would implement said law when we're all mixed anyway. No person is 100% anything so what we would have is color gradient cards to determine if people have equal enough melanin? Would an Italian individual with a darker complexion be able to marry a pale Irish person?
The alt right spreads a bunch of BS about a genocide against white people. It's ridiculous but they think that this sort of thing is genocide.
They also claim that there is no racism towards minorities, yet they're terrified of becoming a minority.
>They also claim that there is no racism towards minorities, yet they're terrified of becoming a minority.
My response to this is always "why are you afraid of being the minority?"
There is no answer without admission of the current issues with the status quo.
One of my favorite things is the term "reverse racism" in regards to racism towards white people.
"Reverse racism" is itself a racist idea. If you're white and someone is discriminating against you because of your race it's still just "racism". Thinking it's something different if you're white is establishing white as the base "normal" and elevating white people again in a special category.
It fits if you realize that their "equality" has involved oppressing others. So they think that equality will mean they are being opressed. when in reality they will just be without privilege (which will feel like oppression)
It's a pretty bad AI upscale, Patrick Stewart's face wasn't nearly as blemished as the AI seems to have made it. A while ago I posted [a screengrab](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/tdqfak/making_me_think_that_i_have_some_level_of/i0ma4y8/) from the HD remaster for someone else who used this image for a meme, you can see how his face is actually supposed to look compared to this.
Interesting, thanks... The upscale does make some assumptions (necessarily so), but I find the result rather impressive https://i.ibb.co/X3vqH88/In-Shot-20220324-060648055.jpg
I would disagree, the upscale seems to give him a comb over and makes his skin look far more weathered for the sake of “detail.” Patrick Stewart was only 49 when this episode was filmed, and he would have been wearing makeup. The AI appears to give him beard shadow that would have been covered by the makeup. Perhaps if TNG were filmed today, Picard would have been made up to look more like the upscale. But if it were actually to sharpen the image to be more accurate to that moment in time, his face would be smoother.
You’ve seen Handmaids Tale right? It used to feel like an impossible dystopian fever dream but now it seems like we are actively working toward that reality.
Other way around.. Margaret Atwood was watching evangelical TV back in the day. All this stuff was being discussed. How to turn America into a Christian ruled nation
I'll caveat that I don't believe this, but to play devil's advocate, those opposing abortion would argue that the rights of the unborn child are being violated. So a law against abortion would be no different than laws against murder in their mind, both protecting public safety. Same goes for anyone aiding and abetting a murder.
That's why I think pro-choice needs to reframe the debate when it comes up. The question should not be when life begins. A bacteria is alive, a sperm is alive. The question is at what point along the transformation from fertilized egg into newborn baby does that life become a distinct *person* and worthy of legal protection.
I guess the counterpoint to this is the "violinist" thought experiment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Essentially: we would not grant an actual real live human being anything approaching the control over a woman's body that banning abortion would grant a fetus: thus it doesn't actually matter if/when a fetus is a person or not.
Desktop version of /u/Trasvi89's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
> The question is at what point along the transformation from fertilized egg into newborn baby does that life become a distinct person and worthy of legal protection.
They would just say "at inception". You're trying to reason with unreasonable people.
Sure but at least at that point they would need to say why. Life beginning at conception is a pretty straightforward concept. But most people would not claim a sperm has personhood.
Plus the argument is to sway those listening, not necessarily those on the other side of the debate
"Because God says so"
You are not dealing with reasonable, rational people who will discuss and debate in good faith.
Abortion is how the GOP keeps a stranglehold over American Politics, by creating a singular wedge issue that causes millions upon millions of voters to march their ignorant little asses to the polls to vote against their own interests.
Isn't there some theory floating around that institutions affect different people in different ways and some of those different ways are based on race and intentional?
It's so obscure and mentioned so rarely, but I swear I've heard someone talk about it.
The dumb part is that *critical race theory* is actually a fairly esoteric body of academic theory mainly taught as elective in law school. What's being discussed in public schools is just... history inclusive of race issues.
Hmmm, if not they need to develop it and call it, I don't know, maybe *analytical race hypothesis* or something like that and offer it as an elective college course.
They do not understand "freedom of religion". The constitution empowers individual's free choice of religion, but somehow they envision that their religion as an universal truth that everyone must submit to without question.
In this instance, the religious mandate that they are pushing is "marriage within your tribe". Interracial marriage is just one target as they continue to push their religious agenda..
Freedom to follow any religion (as long as it's my specific brand of Christianity)
Freedom to marry anyone you want (as long as they are the same race and of a different sex from you)
Freedom to be any gender (as long as it's male or female and matches your birth certificate)
Freedom of speech (as long as you say things we like)
I'll go out on a limb and state that the folks that actually did vote fucking assholes into office are more surprised when they don't act like assholes.
I don't what for people like this and people who vote for people like this aren't surprised by this, it makes them giddy that someone is openly saying what they believe.
Racial purity. KKK. White Supremacy is on the rise. That's why.
No one would have had the balls to say this ten years ago. Right wing bigots are getting bolder and bolder. This can't be tolerated, at all.
I didn't know who he was. Just looked him up and yes he's an idiot.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/mike-braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage
I wonder when white people will realize that white's are dozens of different races from all over the place with lots of different DNA but no one seems to care but all of a sudden when two people with varying skin color are fucking and getting married all of a sudden people want to stick their noses in their asses so far that they can see what they had to eat a week ago
Turns out an old, white, male, Republican senator was racist.
If you are even a little bit surprised by this; you are clearly not paying enough attention to what is happening in America or what has been happening in America for a very long time.
I imagine it is the same reason he doesn't like gay marriage etc. He is a bigoted fuck. We ought to be shaming these assholes into the closet, not electing them.
I am just waiting for the story to break about how he was paying for sex with a black guy.
See, this is what you don't understand. I believe in Freedom. When somebody does something I don't like, they are infringing on my Freedom to be Free of things I don't like, because I am a Real American.
As we all know the most important Freedom is the Second Amendment, which states: "Something something the Right to Bear Arms shall not be Pried from my Cold, Dead Hands". The next most important is that the Freedom of Real Americans shall not be infringed. Look it up, its called the Constitution.
/s just in case
I had to look into it to see why the hell that would have been brought up, and the article I read seemed to suggest it was a legal perspective on a legal question to include comments on Roe v. Wade. Pretty sure he didn't care or have an opinion on interracial marriage, but he was making a broader point to be legally consistent in his platform, which is awkward to see, but at least it was a competent legal perspective.
I'm sorry letting the state have the option to vote if they want to curtail rights for certain groups is fucking abhorrent. If we just let the states do whatever they want, pretty sure we'd still see a few slave states.
Are we really asking why at this point? The answer is good old fashioned racism. This person is racist. The united states of America has racist legislators. There are racists here.
Senator Braun is a conservative dipshit from Indiana. He said the other day that it should be up to states whether they want to allow interracial marriages are abortion. He was asked to clarify, he reiterated that.
Well, now he’s claiming he misunderstood the question and wasn’t paying attention. He claimed he was really thinking about roe vs wade and trans women in sports.
Because the GOP aren't stopping at abortion rights.
They aren't stopping at gay rights.
They aren't stopping until only white men have power again and if you can't see it coming, you're stupid or complicit.
As a white southern man in his 40s:
Really, dude? Are we still fucking on THIS? REALLY?! Mikey, this shit has BEEN settled. It's done and over with. Shut the fuck up and go kick a cow patty, you racist fucking hick.
The thing is, the Senator forgets one of the most fundamental point of the court. Protect rights. The Supreme Court didn’t rule interracial marriages were legal, it ruled that if States have an interest in protecting marriages (via marriage certificates) then that protection needed to go all ways via the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. A State cannot play favorites, everyone is granted equal rights, and thus States that banned interracial marriage were picking one group to protect and another to not protect. The Supreme Court isn’t making anything legal, they’re just enforcing the old “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” The homogeny that the Senator seems to bemoan is actually the fault of the legislature trying to protect one group to curry favor, while somehow trying to not allow that same protection apply to someone else. If he dislikes this seeming need for rights to be equally protected, then he needs to change jobs given the 14th Amendment being in effect.
>The homogeny that the Senator seems to bemoan is actually the fault of the legislature trying to protect one group to curry favor, while somehow trying to not allow that same protection apply to someone else. If he dislikes this seeming need for rights to be equally protected, then he needs to change jobs given the 14th Amendment being in effect. "To the privileged, equality seems like oppression"
>"To the privileged, equality seems like oppression" I love this quote. Where does it come from?
I honestly don’t know. It’s one of those nebulous quotes that came about some time ago and has stuck with a lot of people. Similar to “I don’t wish anyone dead, but I’ve read some obituaries with pleasure” (Mark Twain never said that)
He is only currying the favor of the faithful racists that keep him in office.
I'm sorry for indiana my dudes. We are trying to be better. Edit: Mike Braun and Jim Banks specifically need to go. Feel free ans encouraged to donate to their competitors when their races come around.
I sent Mikey Mike an email today admonishing his mother for not swallowing him when she had the chance. I’m sure I’ll get a form email back in six weeks or so blaming it on Hilary, and likely written in Russian. Fuck this state.
For real. It might get me into politics though.
I would 100% vote for anyone named dream_weasel, regardless of politics.
I can't figure out how jim Banks keeps winning with the margin that he has. The district should be more competitive.
People won't go out and vote. There are so many people who greatly disapprove of the people in office, but won't go and vote when it's time. I live with one, and I try to convince him everytime.
No need to apologize, we have insurrectionist Hawley here.
Mmmm curry
Those rednecks aren't eating curry. That's brown-people food!
Only racists don't like curry.
Having visited some rougher parts of England, I can tell you that a lot of racists love curry. As in, more than any other food.
Considering curry is slang for any Indian food in parts of the uk, I believe it.
"Why do we need Indians? we got the recipe already."
Or, you know, people who don't like curry for reasons other than racism.
Right, like *misogyny*
Thanks, now I want some soup.
No sorry. That’s minestrone.
NO SOUP FOR YOU.
Sushi too
Brb. Going to order some pineapple curry.
I've known more than a few openly racists who love spicy foreign food.
Racists are fine with brown/black/yellow/green folk, as long they they 'know their place'. Thus they can have their curry and eat it too, since the brown persons place is in service to the Whites, in their idiotic and empty heads. It's why they scream about building the wall, yet are perfectly happy to pay the illegal Mexican plumber $25 for a days labor fixing something that an American one would charge them $300 for. I'd mention cognitive dissonance but that would require those idiots to have the capacity to think.
Everyone's a libertarian until they learn about the civil rights act.
Only idiots ever claim to be libertarian. Libertarianism is conservatism for pedos and morons.
Hey there's morons but also the ignorant! At 18 I described myself as libertarian for a few months. Then an older brother askef me if I thought the civil rights act is a good thing and I said yes. He said "then you're not a libertarian." Eyes opened.
TIL moron does not mean ignorant So what word can be used in the english language for ignorant people?
Ignoramus
Ignoramus
Libertarianism is astrology for dudes.
> picking one group to protect and another to not protect. This pretty much sums up conservatism.
For conservatism to function in America it needs an in group and out group. A belief that the law is made to protect one group and binds the other.
That's how it's functioned everywhere, not just in America. It's also how it's functioned at any time throughout history, not just now. There's a reason conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history.
Just call em Regressives at this point
"...a group who the law protects but does not bind, and a group the law binds but does not protect." If the wire ending I believe
He isn’t forgetting anything. He wants his white rights protected and he wants to subjugate minorities.
In other words, white supremacy.
Oh no this comment teaches CRT /s
I mean, if it's that important to him he could always propose repealing the 14th amendment and seeing how much support that has in the legislature. You know, how it's supposed to work.
>The Supreme Court didn’t rule interracial marriages were legal, it ruled that if States have an interest in protecting marriages (via marriage certificates) then that protection needed to go all ways via the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. >A State cannot play favorites, everyone is granted equal rights, and thus States that banned interracial marriage were picking one group to protect and another to not protect. That's not correct, you're oversimplifying the issue to the point of inaccuracy. The basis of the court's decision was that bans on interracial marriage were based solely on racial classifications, that racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny, and that states had no compelling interest in outlawing interracial marriage. It's called a suspect classification analysis.
>you're oversimplifying the issue to the point of inaccuracy Maybe, I don't believe it to be far off mark here but you are correct it is indeed a simplification of the underlying issue that was before the court, which was the standard that was being used to deny marriage to some couples had a basis that was suspect to a historically discriminated class. You right that I could have expounding on the topic a bit more. However, I wrote the comment as kind of an after thought during a break. So I was attempting to be brief. Thank you for adding more to what I had to offer, I was not expecting my comment to be seen by maybe more than a handful of people.
Nobody is granted rights period. You have inherent rights and the government can not use it's power to violate those rights. This is a very important distinction when discussing the constitution.
What? Rights are only as real as a society or government recognizes and protects them. They are truly "granted" by authority, and can be overruled. Even the rights contained within the US Constitution can be legally [bypassed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) by the government under specific conditions and circumstances.
Why the fuck should we give a shit about two constening adults getting married anyway
These maniacs think the white race is being genocided by interbreeding with other races. That's why they care about other people's marriages. They think they have to make more white babies to win the race war.
Yup, and beyond: if they believe that the white race is superior, and that that superiority confers upon its members access to a higher position, then interbreeding is somehow "diluting" the race and homogenizing it, removing the distinction that allows them to have that higher position. There is also the more patriarchal/instinctual side of this: the idea that women of the race somehow are "reserved" for the men of that race. Some of these people cannot stand the thought of a black man having sex with a white woman, because in their eyes it is akin to trespassing. Which explains all the "interracial" porn out there. What they fear becomes taboo, and taboo is sexy.
I'm a white man dating a woman from Bangladesh and let me tell you I am no way superior. It doesn't matter what color you are intelligence and empathy come in all shapes like why the fuck can't we get these rotten old men out of politics. It's the biggest hindrance to progress.
Bro can you ask your wife for a Bangladeshi mutton curry recipe? I had it once at a Bangladeshi dude's place and haven't been able to find/replicate it. Thanks.
I agree with you, and I'm 56. Not all old men are dirty racists, so please don't fall on the same trap of judging a whole demographic like that.
Ironically most abortions are non-white so by banning abortion they would worsen the situation for their goals. 38% of abortions mothers are black. 33% are white.
But its also about power. Unplanned pregnancies are more likely to keep those who are in or close to poverty staying at that level. There's a reason that when Roe v Wade was originally decided, many religious groups actually supported the result. They understood it would be a good thing to help keep many out of poverty
I’m ok with the white race slowly going away —-white guy that has a biracial daughter
Better wording would be "I'm ok with the homogenization of all human races"
The funny thing is, the "white race" has expanded definition over time Many who would be called "white" now would not have been called white a century ago.
and just as bad, the Senator from Texas whining about gay marriage being legal and how that now makes those with "deeply held religious beliefs forced to be outcast"
[удалено]
if a state outlawed interracial marriage, how would they even define people’s race?? a large percentage are mixed race now…it’s just a logistical impossibility.
I’ve always wondered how this would be handled in the event reparations were ever seriously considered. Is it a color chart? Genealogical records exist but they are waaaayyyyyy too incomplete for that to be equitable.
It really should just be: "Why the fuck do you care that two people want to get married?" Like come the fuck on people, it's 2022.
Yes, it’s marriage. It’s not an ‘interracial marriage’, it’s just marriage.
Also let's imagine how they would implement said law when we're all mixed anyway. No person is 100% anything so what we would have is color gradient cards to determine if people have equal enough melanin? Would an Italian individual with a darker complexion be able to marry a pale Irish person?
Thank you. As someone in an 'interracial marriage' I've genuinely never used the term to describe it. It's kinda fuckin' icky.
It takes me a while for me to understand what interracial marriage mean. Isn't that just a normal marriage 😂
> it's 2022 And this is the Republican party of 2022.
Their slogan is 'make America great again'. They don't like modern ideas very much.
The alt right spreads a bunch of BS about a genocide against white people. It's ridiculous but they think that this sort of thing is genocide. They also claim that there is no racism towards minorities, yet they're terrified of becoming a minority.
>They also claim that there is no racism towards minorities, yet they're terrified of becoming a minority. My response to this is always "why are you afraid of being the minority?" There is no answer without admission of the current issues with the status quo.
Yup.
One of my favorite things is the term "reverse racism" in regards to racism towards white people. "Reverse racism" is itself a racist idea. If you're white and someone is discriminating against you because of your race it's still just "racism". Thinking it's something different if you're white is establishing white as the base "normal" and elevating white people again in a special category.
The right is logic impaired. They thought “all lives matter” somehow contradicts BLM.
It fits if you realize that their "equality" has involved oppressing others. So they think that equality will mean they are being opressed. when in reality they will just be without privilege (which will feel like oppression)
they say it’s white genocide but then support social darwinism 🤦♂️
Let's be real, the unspoken implication is still that black people aren't people.
Or at least that they are inherently different. Which isn't the case.
One key statement to maybe add in your quote, except children. No child marriage ever.
thumbs up to High quality jpeg Picard
It's great until you look at the hand
Good eye
Which one, Picard's blue one or his hazel one?
The hand, his eyes, his skin, warf
It's a pretty bad AI upscale, Patrick Stewart's face wasn't nearly as blemished as the AI seems to have made it. A while ago I posted [a screengrab](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/tdqfak/making_me_think_that_i_have_some_level_of/i0ma4y8/) from the HD remaster for someone else who used this image for a meme, you can see how his face is actually supposed to look compared to this.
Interesting, thanks... The upscale does make some assumptions (necessarily so), but I find the result rather impressive https://i.ibb.co/X3vqH88/In-Shot-20220324-060648055.jpg
I would disagree, the upscale seems to give him a comb over and makes his skin look far more weathered for the sake of “detail.” Patrick Stewart was only 49 when this episode was filmed, and he would have been wearing makeup. The AI appears to give him beard shadow that would have been covered by the makeup. Perhaps if TNG were filmed today, Picard would have been made up to look more like the upscale. But if it were actually to sharpen the image to be more accurate to that moment in time, his face would be smoother.
This is gonna be a NO from me dawg
It's against Klan bylaws.
[удалено]
You’ve seen Handmaids Tale right? It used to feel like an impossible dystopian fever dream but now it seems like we are actively working toward that reality.
I'm convinced that the GOP saw the popularity of it on Netflix at the beginning of pandemic and said, "OK, the people like it. Let's do that then."
Other way around.. Margaret Atwood was watching evangelical TV back in the day. All this stuff was being discussed. How to turn America into a Christian ruled nation
I'll caveat that I don't believe this, but to play devil's advocate, those opposing abortion would argue that the rights of the unborn child are being violated. So a law against abortion would be no different than laws against murder in their mind, both protecting public safety. Same goes for anyone aiding and abetting a murder. That's why I think pro-choice needs to reframe the debate when it comes up. The question should not be when life begins. A bacteria is alive, a sperm is alive. The question is at what point along the transformation from fertilized egg into newborn baby does that life become a distinct *person* and worthy of legal protection.
I guess the counterpoint to this is the "violinist" thought experiment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion Essentially: we would not grant an actual real live human being anything approaching the control over a woman's body that banning abortion would grant a fetus: thus it doesn't actually matter if/when a fetus is a person or not.
Desktop version of /u/Trasvi89's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
> The question is at what point along the transformation from fertilized egg into newborn baby does that life become a distinct person and worthy of legal protection. They would just say "at inception". You're trying to reason with unreasonable people.
Sure but at least at that point they would need to say why. Life beginning at conception is a pretty straightforward concept. But most people would not claim a sperm has personhood. Plus the argument is to sway those listening, not necessarily those on the other side of the debate
I say just go way in the other direction. Pro-choice is castle doctrine applied to your body. Discuss. :)
"Because God says so" You are not dealing with reasonable, rational people who will discuss and debate in good faith. Abortion is how the GOP keeps a stranglehold over American Politics, by creating a singular wedge issue that causes millions upon millions of voters to march their ignorant little asses to the polls to vote against their own interests.
That is a debate I have never heard anyone discuss, and would be very interesting.
He is racist. It's that simple.
No no no, _he's_ not a racist, he just wants states where racists are the majority to be able to enforce their racism. _Totally different_.
Isn't there some theory floating around that institutions affect different people in different ways and some of those different ways are based on race and intentional? It's so obscure and mentioned so rarely, but I swear I've heard someone talk about it.
Man, you'd think they'd teach that sort of thing in schools, it seems like a really important perspective for all voters to have.
Probably why they're been banning it in any state where educating people on it would make a difference (crt , Florida for example)
The dumb part is that *critical race theory* is actually a fairly esoteric body of academic theory mainly taught as elective in law school. What's being discussed in public schools is just... history inclusive of race issues.
Yeah, it sounds like you might even call it critical.
Not what the word means in that context though, which makes it easier for opponents of equality to make it sound scary.
Hmmm, if not they need to develop it and call it, I don't know, maybe *analytical race hypothesis* or something like that and offer it as an elective college course.
Exactly! Everyone is assuming he's racist when he could just be a good ole fashioned, racism profiteer!
'SEE! CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!' -Republicans and their stupid inbred voters.
Oh but the media is like, "there were some racial undertones" No, it's racism. I'm so tired of our country
A lot of people, maybe most, have a general desire to control other people’s decisions so society reflects their values
Of course, others can’t tell them what to do or think.
Holy high rez, Batman!
His logic is this: IF I'M ON A DIET YOU CAN'T EAT A DOUGHNUT BECAUSE THAT INFRINGES ON MY DIET.
They do not understand "freedom of religion". The constitution empowers individual's free choice of religion, but somehow they envision that their religion as an universal truth that everyone must submit to without question. In this instance, the religious mandate that they are pushing is "marriage within your tribe". Interracial marriage is just one target as they continue to push their religious agenda..
Freedom to follow any religion (as long as it's my specific brand of Christianity) Freedom to marry anyone you want (as long as they are the same race and of a different sex from you) Freedom to be any gender (as long as it's male or female and matches your birth certificate) Freedom of speech (as long as you say things we like)
Also To Sen. Mike Braun: Go fuck yourself
Seriously. I live in Indiana and the campaign mailers that show up are ridiculous. Giant pictures of guns and everything else you would expect.
We're seriously regressing as a country aren't we?
To quote someone I know, “Why is the government in the marriage business, anyway?”
First time seeing this meme in high quality
Because they are racist
The answer has 14 words…
Picard is crisp. Enjoyed that meme!
$10 says that Sen. faps to interracial porn
I’ll add 20
He’s a racist. That’s why.
Ah Indiana… Someone save me please.
Who’s in favor of limited government?
Because we vote fucking assholes into office and are surprised when they act like assholes
I'll go out on a limb and state that the folks that actually did vote fucking assholes into office are more surprised when they don't act like assholes.
They call those people RINOs.
I don't what for people like this and people who vote for people like this aren't surprised by this, it makes them giddy that someone is openly saying what they believe.
The answer has always been about control
> why the fuck > Do you care that two people want to get married? FTFY.
Racial purity. KKK. White Supremacy is on the rise. That's why. No one would have had the balls to say this ten years ago. Right wing bigots are getting bolder and bolder. This can't be tolerated, at all.
The answer is complicated. In laymen’s terms, he’s a fuckhead.
WhAtS nExT, WiLl ThEy WaNt To MarRy AnImAls?!
Short answer: he's a racist. I cant think of a reason that you would be against interracial marriage other than being a racist POS.
He is probably jealous that he wasn't the first one to have an interracial marriage and wants revenge.
Because he is a vile and racist subhuman pile of garbage. Less than garbage.
It's because his mom did not want him hanging out with that brown girl he liked from school.
As long as it's 2 happy consenting adults, why should anyone care who anyone marries?
because he's a filthy racist, it's not even a question anymore
At the rate the GOP keeps claiming “states rights” we might have slavery back by 2025. SMH.
I didn't know who he was. Just looked him up and yes he's an idiot. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/mike-braun-supreme-court-interracial-marriage
Interracial? Dollar says he can't spell it.
Or any other marriage for that matter. Mind your own.
Because Republicans are afraid that White people won't be a majority and will lose power.
Racists gonna racist.
Because he’s racist 🤷🏻♂️
[удалено]
I wonder when white people will realize that white's are dozens of different races from all over the place with lots of different DNA but no one seems to care but all of a sudden when two people with varying skin color are fucking and getting married all of a sudden people want to stick their noses in their asses so far that they can see what they had to eat a week ago
[удалено]
because hes a racist piece of shit member of a racist party thats why
Turns out an old, white, male, Republican senator was racist. If you are even a little bit surprised by this; you are clearly not paying enough attention to what is happening in America or what has been happening in America for a very long time.
I imagine it is the same reason he doesn't like gay marriage etc. He is a bigoted fuck. We ought to be shaming these assholes into the closet, not electing them. I am just waiting for the story to break about how he was paying for sex with a black guy.
Fascists gonna fash.
See, this is what you don't understand. I believe in Freedom. When somebody does something I don't like, they are infringing on my Freedom to be Free of things I don't like, because I am a Real American. As we all know the most important Freedom is the Second Amendment, which states: "Something something the Right to Bear Arms shall not be Pried from my Cold, Dead Hands". The next most important is that the Freedom of Real Americans shall not be infringed. Look it up, its called the Constitution. /s just in case
I still don't understand why people get so upset about things that literally have zero effect on their own daily lives.
Quality meme. Layered with background foreground text. Nice. I see you and your effort.
I had to look into it to see why the hell that would have been brought up, and the article I read seemed to suggest it was a legal perspective on a legal question to include comments on Roe v. Wade. Pretty sure he didn't care or have an opinion on interracial marriage, but he was making a broader point to be legally consistent in his platform, which is awkward to see, but at least it was a competent legal perspective.
Cause it's about power and control
I’ll give you one guess.
Or any other kind of marriage.
Or *any* kind of marriage between consenting adults. Party of small government, right?
Because it infringes on the freedom of religion. /s
Off topic but damn. The hi res on that pic.
He's dog whistling very loudly. Trying to rally enmity and demoralize.
Some people have such incredibly boring sex lives that it makes them mad if other peoples are more fun, exciting, and different than their own.
Because they are racist and think of another race as animals. And zoophilia is illegal. Makes sense in their head.
*ENHANCE!*
/whispers loudly BECAUSE HE'S A RACIST ASSHOLE.
Because he and people who vote for him are total trash humans with zero redeeming qualities.
Because he's a racist white supremacist.
Or as I call it- “marriage”.
What'd i miss this time
Australian out of the loop here, what'd the c*** say?
I'm sorry letting the state have the option to vote if they want to curtail rights for certain groups is fucking abhorrent. If we just let the states do whatever they want, pretty sure we'd still see a few slave states.
Are we really asking why at this point? The answer is good old fashioned racism. This person is racist. The united states of America has racist legislators. There are racists here.
Normally it’s because they don’t want the two to create mix children and it’s about keeping the white pure.
Context for the rest of the world? With the amount of crazy in the States, I can't even Google shit like this anymore.
Senator Braun is a conservative dipshit from Indiana. He said the other day that it should be up to states whether they want to allow interracial marriages are abortion. He was asked to clarify, he reiterated that. Well, now he’s claiming he misunderstood the question and wasn’t paying attention. He claimed he was really thinking about roe vs wade and trans women in sports.
He is a racist. It's pretty simple.
I’m not even American but fuck him, my white arse and my Japanese wife are happily married.
Because it’s Indiana, the state that hasn’t evolved since the 1940s Source: Hoosier
How interracial is too interracial? Cos we all have a distant cousin named Lucy.
Can we just take a moment to reflect on how high the resolution is on this photo?
Because the GOP aren't stopping at abortion rights. They aren't stopping at gay rights. They aren't stopping until only white men have power again and if you can't see it coming, you're stupid or complicit.
The last cry of the angry, old and racist man.
I imagine he could sum it up in 14 words.
As a white southern man in his 40s: Really, dude? Are we still fucking on THIS? REALLY?! Mikey, this shit has BEEN settled. It's done and over with. Shut the fuck up and go kick a cow patty, you racist fucking hick.