GOP Senator Says Legalizing Interracial Marriage Was a Mistake

[K Graham]

Wow. Just. Wow.

When the racists say the quiet part out loud.

Mike Braun of Indiana told reporters that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state laws that banned Black and white Americans from wedding.

Braun, the junior senator from Indiana, made his comments during a media call in which he argued that policy issues should generally be left in the hands of state governments whenever possible, especially in the case of abortion.

“So you would be OK with the Supreme Court leaving the question of interracial marriage to the states?” a reporter asked.

“Yes,” Braun answered. “I think that that’s something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that’s hypocritical."

Hard to imagine why anyone would associate racism with the GOP.

"State's Rights" was one of the preferred talking points during the Southern Strategy according to Lee Atwater.

[Res Ipsa]

I think that Braun’s comment has more to do with gay marriage than racism. Loving set the precedent for Obergefell by declaring marriage to be a fundamental right under the Constitution. If marriage is not a fundamental right under the US Constitution, the states are free to exclude whoever they want from marriage.

I suspect that’s what Braun was focused on when he made the comment, not interracial marriage. It was a gaffe unrelated to interracial marriage.

[MeDotOrg]

I think that Braun’s comment has more to do with gay marriage than racism. Loving set the precedent for Obergefell by declaring marriage to be a fundamental right under the Constitution. If marriage is not a fundamental right under the US Constitution, the states are free to exclude whoever they want from marriage.

I suspect that’s what Braun was focused on when he made the comment, not interracial marriage. It was a gaffe unrelated to interracial marriage.

Slave wedding vows were changed to "till death or distance do we part". The definition of marriage helps define the values of a society.

Conservatism, which places great value on choice and individual freedom, nevertheless seems intent to diminishing personal freedom in this area. Distinguishing between Loving and Obergefell may be a legal argument, but it sounds like sorting the Jews from the Gypsies, if you know what I mean.

[Res Ipsa]

I think that Braun’s comment has more to do with gay marriage than racism. Loving set the precedent for Obergefell by declaring marriage to be a fundamental right under the Constitution. If marriage is not a fundamental right under the US Constitution, the states are free to exclude whoever they want from marriage.

I suspect that’s what Braun was focused on when he made the comment, not interracial marriage. It was a gaffe unrelated to interracial marriage.

Slave wedding vows were changed to "till death or distance do we part". The definition of marriage helps define the values of a society.

Conservatism, which places great value on choice and individual freedom, nevertheless seems intent to diminishing personal freedom in this area. Distinguishing between Loving and Obergefell may be a legal argument, but it sounds like sorting the Jews from the Gypsies, if you know what I mean.

I agree. That's why Braun and others aren't just trying to distinguish Loving from Obergefell, they argue that Loving was wrongly decided. You get exactly the same thing with abortion. Roe is based on precedent that originates in Griswold, which is a birth control case. It is the case in which the Supreme Court first identified a right to privacy -- that the government has no power to regulate the most private aspects of people's lives. Braun was also asked about Griswold, which he also said was wrongly decided because the issue should be up do the states. Is he trying to make birth control illegal? I doubt it. He's trying to make a principled, consistent argument that would result in the overturning of Obergefell and Roe. To do that, he has to take the position that Griswold and Loving were wrongly decided.

That's why he also said “You’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too. I think that’s hypocritical.” And also said: “when it comes to issues, you can’t have it both ways.”

When he got blowback from his comments, he through his principles under the bus and claimed he didn't understand the question. I think he understood the question perfectly. But, in the face of a political smear claiming that he was racist, he threw his principled stance under the bus.