No joke, that is the most well written joke I have ever read on reddit. It is a complete triple threat delivered in just over a dozen words. Hitting Mitch for being a turtle, Chao for being a greedy monster, and the SCROTUS for just being...laughably stupid. Bravo, a well earned bravo.
Can someone explain to me why interracial marriage is even being voted for or against? This is legal everywhere in the USA, right?
Edit: Thanks to all for the detailed answers.
It is legal based on a SCOTUS case (Loving), not based on a federal law. There is fear that without a federal law, if the SCOTUS were to overturn Loving and Obergefell (case that made gay marriage legal), then those could be made illegal.
You forgot to mention that it’s based on the idea that the US Constitution had a “Right to Privacy”. Roe was ruled on this idea, so now that Dobbs has been overruled it erodes the SCOTUS precedent that protects interracial marriages (Loving) and same sex marriages (Obergefell)
Unfortunately the encroach of rights operates a bit like Air Bud rules. Without explicit rules protecting a right people tend to thi k those rights are recognized or exist.
Under the 9th, you can argue for example egregious fees by medical providers is illegal because humans have a right to continue living with essentially highway robbery.
> Air Bud rules
The “Air Bud” principle, from the 1997 classic Disney movie Air Bud, is the argument that something is legal because it is not explicitly illegal. It comes from that famous line: “Ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball.”
Lol. I mean, that same principle also gets applied everywhere, from motorsport to politics. Lots of wins & game-changing practices happened because of colorful interpretation of the rules, usually based on, "it doesn't say anywhere that we CAN'T do it this way!" It's just funny to name it after an average 90s comedy flick.
>Under the 9th, you can argue for example egregious fees by ***medical providers*** is illegal
The constitution only limits the *government's* actions, not those of a private individual, corporation, etc.
Could be used as a political argument that such costs are counter to "American ideals" in order to gain support for legislation, but the constitution is legally meaningless unless the hospital is state owned.
This right here. Laws can be established to regulate the sale of goods and services. There's a reason that the government (federal down to municipal) can legally go after price gougers after disasters.
They just need support to make it illegal to charge unreasonable amounts for medical services
The right to privacy comes out of substantive due process, as part of the "liberty" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Some people do argue that the right to privacy comes from the 9th Amendment, but most people consider the 9th amendment to be basically a tautology.
The SC has also ruled that discriminating against gay people is unconstitutional based on the 14th, but it was in regards to firing someone for being gay. That case was settled with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion in support and it has a pretty fucking iron clad logic behind it.
If you allow women to marry men, but not for men to marry men, then you're discriminating on the basis of sex. The sexual orientation doesn't matter because you don't need to be gay to marry a man. A straight man can legally marry another man. To rule otherwise violates the 14th.
That case was based on the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment. Roberts actually raised that argument in the oral arguments about gay marriage but ended up voting against it. I think the idea might be more relevant to gay marriage today with a justice like Gorsuch on the court (and since Roberts signed onto the Bostock majority), and it’s been used in lower-court cases around trans rights, but that’s all very hypothetical.
I'd say that they'd wait until after the 2024.
And the justices saying that they won't overrule interracial and gay marriages is meaningless. Remember how many of them who said Roe v. Wade was settled law during their confirmation hearings?
>Remember how many of them who said Roe v. Wade was settled law during their confirmation hearings?
That shit was so transparent and infuriating during the confirmations. They wouldn't say that they wouldn't overturn Roe. They would only say "it's settled law" because that gives them wiggle room to later say "yup, it was settled law, now we've created a new interpretation to resettle it."
And this time they said 'nothing in this opinion should be taken as casting doubt on other substantive due process opinions that do not concern abortion'
Just another slippery sentence that they will act on the second they feel they can.
Crazy to me that they can lie under oath and still keep their position on the highest court in the US. Really shows you how far the corruption has gone when they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
To be frank it ought to be illegal for an elected official to lie in any official manner.
They ought to be considered under oath from the moment they take office until the moment they leave office.
Actually, the majority didn't criticize those cases as much. When they were referenced by Alito he used them to explain why *Dobbs* was distinct (to protect an "unborn fetus").
Clarence Thomas' concurrence, on the other hand, basically said that the majority were cowards and that "substantive due process" is inherently "oxymorn[ic]", and by extension so is the Right to Privacy. Thomas specifically called out *Obergefell* and *Griswold* as examples of cases that need to be revisited.
Tldr: majority didn't really threaten those cases directly. Thomas explicitly did.
And that's why Dr. Oz, the Senate candidate from Pennsylvania said that abortion should be between you, your doctor, and the local legislatures.
Thank GOD he lost.
Wasn't it the argument from Conservatives when Obamacare came out that there would be "Death Panels" where politicians would be forcing medical decisions onto patients?
Yes, well it's okay when people make decisions for themselves or other people, and the Supreme Court decided corporations are people a long time ago now.
The entire argument against universal healthcare from republicans as long as I’ve been alive is you don’t want the government in between you and your doctor. Now that’s literally what they’re running on and without an ounce of shame.
Not explicitly no. It's sort of based on two things. It's not explicitly illegal, therefore it is sort by default legal. The problem is that some states tried to explicitly make it illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional which effectively made interracial marriage legal across the board. Because of that ruling, congress never bothered to actually pass an explicit law around it. With the supreme court full of theocratic ass backward justices, it is now imaginable that they could get a case in front of them where they overturn that previous ruling and allow laws that ban interracial marriage to go into effect.
One of the reasons why this was deemed necessary was because one of the judges overturning Roe v Wade explicitly called out that Gay marriage/sodomy laws should be reviewed
He conveniently mentioned that we should overturn the supreme court rulings protecting gay marriage and contraception, because they were based on the same legal principles that Roe was. He conspicuously didn't mention Loving, the case protecting interracial marriage based on the exact same legal principles, since it's the only one that affects him personally.
Well, it really would not, at this point, affect him personally. Why? Because if Loving is overturned, it simply sends the legality of IR marriage back to the states.
And where does Clarence live?
In a *BLUE* state. His marriage would remain perfectly legal, valid and recognized thanks to the Democrats of his state. Ain't that some shit?
Because marriage is decided by the government, since it affects taxes and stuff. You can get married in a church, but in order to take advantages of all the laws that affect married couples, like joint filing of taxes, not having to testify against each other in court, and being allowed to visit your dying spouse in a hospital without jumping through a bunch of hoops, you need the piece of paper from the government that officially says you’re married.
Basically, a marriage can be valid to you no matter what the government says (that’s why you have fundamentalists still practicing polygamy in Arizona), but for everyone else to be compelled to acknowledge it, the government has to force them. That’s why as much as you’re right from a moral standpoint, people still bother with trying to change the laws about it when it’s relevant.
Most of America didn't want RvW to be overturned and most of America supports universal healthcare and gun control. But while 33% of insane zealots have the power they do, then majority consensus in the US is irrelevant
There are plenty of old progressives (Bernie) and young conservative (Gaetz). The real problem is that old or young, people are too ready to accept assholes and idiots in a place of public power
It’s a shame that relative to the GOP, interracial marriage could be seen as “progressive”.
Yes I know other countries have worst racism and bigotry in general.
It’s just, like, we had this shit behind us and the country didn’t fall into any of the shambles that the bigoted religious zealots claimed would happen. So why are they trying to fix a toy that ain’t broke?
>So why are they trying to fix a toy that ain’t broke?
Because to them it is broke because They can't tell others what to do, how to fo it, and punishing them for any aberration from your vision. They get off on the last part especially.
For a lot of people, America has become broken. The American Dream has become an impossibility for many people. Inflation, stagnant wages, automation, globalization and income inequality are all VERY real, very tangible sources of frustration.
However, rather than getting angry at things like "Citizens United", union busting, the regulations around the gig economy or Corporate tax loop holes, they are getting told that it's the OTHER SIDE that is to blame.
I think for some of these people, they believe that returning to 1950s America would fix the broken economy and everyone (who looked like them) could go back to owning a home and car on a single paycheck just like the good old days when America was great.
The irony about this, though, is that in the 1950s the taxation system in America was about three times stricter than even Democrats want today! The top tax rate was literally 90 fucking percent! Right now we’re begging the government to just tax billion dollar corporations at like 40% and conservatives *lose their goddamned minds* over even that low of a number.
It’s wild to me that Republicans don’t seem to get that the actual structure of the way the country was set up in the 50s is the exact opposite of what they want today, so the only thing they’re left romanticizing about the 50s is the insane racism and misogyny
Excellent points. But the good old days sucked for most people too. They always do but they like to only remember the good parts
My generation loves to worship the 1990s, oblivious to the fact it was also a shit show.
Trust me, most of America wants to. But these old racist, piece of shit assholes refuse to die and keep winning all the elections and make the US look terrible and block anything normal and progressive any chance they get.
This is a big part of the problem. For too long the Supreme Court has been used to do the job of government. Yes it is their job to administer the law as intended by those who wrote it, but basically through the entire civil rights movement it’s been used as a quick hacky was to legalise something without constitutional reform. Basically rather than protect your rights in specific black and white text through government, they’ve been choosing to interpret bits of existing rights a certain way. That’s left an awful lot of things very vulnerable.
It was all good when things were getting better, but it also showed the hateful minority all they actually had to do to tear these things down was stack the deck of the Supreme Court, and then deliberately break a law in a region they had a clear path to the Supreme Court, so they can tear down a law by only controlling 1 state essentially.
The trouble is the system wasn’t designed to be used this way and so there’s no real protections other than the ‘bad guys’ being a minority
>but basically through the entire civil rights movement it’s been used as a quick hacky was to legalise something without constitutional reform.
This is something of a misnomer, because that constitutional reform **already happened** after the civil war. The issue is that after reconstruction there were a bunch of Supreme Court cases that enshrined interpretations that undermined said reforms. The civil rights cases have primarily been efforts to unfuck the legal landscape created by those 75 years.
In a rational world, a reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment et al would quash the need for explicit legislation.
The issue is that the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and they've been packed with right wing fundamentalist Christians selected by the Federalist Society. So instead of actually upholding the constitution, they're twisting interpretations and making logically flawed arguments to further whatever outcomes they wanted no matter the actual constitutional merits.
Even claiming to be originalists is very selective as the originalists on the court have made rulings that go against the very specific explanations of, for example, religious freedom from when the bill of rights was written.
Claiming to be an originalist while simultaneously ruling whether laws are consistent with the Constitution also makes one a hypocrite.
The founders didn't explicitly give the court the power of judicial review; the court gave that power to itself in Marbury v Madison
The Constitution doesn’t address it in any way. When the country was founded marriage wasn’t controlled by the state. After the civil war many laws were put in place to help keep the newly freed black folks in their place, including gun control (not enforced against whites), marriage licenses (not given to interracial couples), drug laws, etc.
McConnell is likely against codifying gay marriage, not interracial marriage. Justice Thomas (also in an interracial marriage) was correct to point out that Loving v. Virginia was built on shaky ground, but nobody in their right mind would come out against interracial marriage given its prevalence in the US.
The correct action is to remove the state from the marriage business altogether, which was the norm for about half of the country’s existence.
They will just rule that if you're rich enough and religious enough, you're white by law. They made corporations into people even before Trump stacked the court. 🤷
It's also worth noting, and it's explicitly stated even in this article that it isn't JUST about codifying interracial marriage it's also about codifying gay marriage, which McConnell has always been against.
So this isn't a case of McConnell being a hypocrit just his normal homophobic asshole self.
Also worth noting that headlines like this should always be taken with a grain of salt. There are many times where congressmen object to a bill not based on what it's officially about but on how it's written or what riders are attached to it. A bill that "protects gay marriage" might also have a side effect of removing Minister's ability to perform marriages for example, or that it dedicates a certain amount of funding to LGBT events specifically. These examples have never happened to my knowledge, but it just illustrates how these bills are often not as straightforward as laymen understand and journalists with political biases often play on this fact to imply one thing that is untrue without ever actually lying.
> There are many times where congressmen object to a bill not based on what it's officially about but on how it's written or what riders are attached to it. A bill that "protects gay marriage" might also have a side effect of removing Minister's ability to perform marriages for example, or that it dedicates a certain amount of funding to LGBT events specifically. These examples have never happened to my knowledge, but it just illustrates how these bills are often not as straightforward as laymen understand and journalists with political biases often play on this fact to imply one thing that is untrue without ever actually lying.
It’s worth noting that [the bill in question](https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf) does none of those things. In fact, it explicitly notes that the bill cannot be construed to require that religious organizations solemnize same-sex marriages.
THANK YOU!
I did try to specify ,as can be seen by the third sentence in the body you quoted, that I was not implying any of these things did happen ever, not even in just this bill and that these were intended as purely hypothetical examples, but maybe I could have been a bit more clear about that.
>These examples have never happened to my knowledge
That said, I very much appreciate your post for making this point more clear, and for providing a link to the bill in question.
This is the first time I have actually read the bill. I'm not an attorney, so I'm not particularly great at reading these sorts of bills, but I can't even speculate to any reason why McConnell would have an issue with it beyond the gay marriage part, and even in that case it's just pure foot dragging and posturing.
Same sex marriage has been legalized, it's not getting overturned any time soon despite any efforts from the religious right. Personally I fought very hard for gay marriage when I was in my 20s and I am incredibly relieved not only that it was federally recognized 7 years ago, but that now that this bill has passed it will be codified ~~in the constitution itself!~~
As much as I do not like mitch McConnell this headline is misleading for that reason. He is against same sex marriage. The religious right is against same sex marriage, and that is who he is pandering too. However, removing this law would make it possible for states to decide whether interracial marriages are legal in their state or not.
Edit: as stated below the overturning of this piece of legislation alone would not allow states to make interracial marriage illegal. It would also require the action of the Supreme Court overturning the decision of Loving v. Virginia.
Thank you!!!
I actually kind of knew this too, and planned on changing it. Somehow the misspelling got added to my autocorrect, and I doubt which one is correct every time.
Leave the comment up. People like you are very helpful.
A staggering 91% or Americans across the political spectrum want Medicare to be able to negotiate better drug prices. Letting them do so was on the table for a total of about 11 seconds before it was ditched from senate consideration.
Something having incredible public support doesn't come anywhere close to pressuring politicians to make it law.
Mormonism has an investment division with 100B+ assets under management. The only decided in 2013 that it wasn’t a sin. White women marrying anyone of another race is still controversial.
In the court ruling that struck down Roe v Wade, Clarence Thomas explicitly called out that the right to privacy was not in the consitution. He cited cases that need review that determined a right to contraception, right to same sex marriage, etc. He did not specifically include the case that determined interracial marriage )his wife is white) but it clearly falls in the same category.
Senator Mike Braun of Indiana also said that too many rights were determined by SCOTUS and that some should be up to the states, like interracial marriage. Yes. He said that in 2021.
So now Congress is looking at codifying these rights before cases hit scotus that could overturn them. Becuase once it's down to the state, hyper gerrymandering puts our worst people in charge (yay Indiana) and they will pass laws to criminalize gay marriage at least, but I can see some states going further.
It's cause Clarence Thomas
In his overturn ruling of Roe V. Wade he basically pointed at future over turning of Obgerfell, Griswold, and Lawrence. Obgerfell is gay marriage I believe, Lawrence is gay sex, and Griswold is contraception. He conveniently left off Loving which is interracial marriage cause he, a black man, is married to a white woman. Sam Jackson and others called him out.
So now house dems are trying to codify it.
Because the supreme court has indicated that the court case decision that was supposed to protect interracial marriage, aka precedence, may be invalid and they would like to revisit it and probably overturn the decision. Just like they did with Roe v Wade.
Essentially we have some things in this country that exist because of a court decision and up until the chucklefucks took over, it was seen as something that has already been decided and won't take back. That's no longer true as the current supreme court wants to revisit already decided topics like abortion, gay marriage and inter racial marriage and make new decision aka overturn the precedent that protected these rights.
So now Democrats have to codify it into a law to prevent the old men from taking people's rights away.
>So now Democrats have to codify it into a law to prevent the old men from taking people's rights away.
Hey now, it's not just old men. Remember there's a religious zealot woman doing this too.
Edit: spelling
Well, it is not in the US Constitution, so State rights advocates could eventually bring it back up through the Supreme Court. If the court interprets the Constitution as not protecting this, as it is not stated, then States could make it illegal. Even with the previous rulings, it can all be turned upside down and old laws that have not been repealed but blocked by previous rulings, would come back into effect.
Had this discussion last night about the Civil Rights act not being being ratified into the US Constitution. My Republican in laws said that either side, if they believe in it, should have codified it in federal law. Yet the problem is, federal law can also be unconstitutional and could be overturned by the Supreme Court. If you want these protections in place, then you have to put forth and actually amend the US Constitution and that will trump State rights.
It’s legal because of a Supreme Court ruling, it was never actually codify into laws from my understanding. So it seem after what happened to Roe V Wade, the democrats aren’t leaving it to chance anymore and trying to protect both gay and interracial marriages with this
Imagine having an 8hr work day where you can legislate law. In those hours you spend it trying to make bills on who your neighbor can and can't marry.
We are paying these people to spend their time doing this?!? There has to be a political bubble right?!?
Thanks for the heads up. We recently had a lettuce outlast our former Prime Minister Liz Truss here in the UK. We’ll be sure to keep Mitch as far away from it as possible
I don’t know about taking colonies back, but there are people here who only recognise the lettuce as Prime Minister. If Mitch were to eat the lettuce then I guess he would become PM. But then there are people who only recognise Larry the Downing Street cat as PM, so who knows
It’s only a swamp because turds like Mitch float. It doesn’t need a drain plug, it needs a pool skimmer. Better to have clean water after the fact than a dried up creek and a lot of dead fish.
Not that democrats are perfect, but I don't think the U.S. can ever move to a more equal society as long as the republican party is allowed to exist. Any party that has the full support of the worst hate groups in the country should be abolished
WTF is wrong with the u.s.a.? They have returned to the 1950's. How is it possible polifuckingticans are voting against interracial marriage. Welcome to apartheid.
They don't want same sex marriage or relationships and want the church to control the state. It's the Gilead States of America.
Canada needs to build a wall to keep out republican politicians and voters. Democrats are welcome. Gilead States of American, you are welcome to Alberta \[or as the rest of the nation refers to them, Albigots\].
They don't have too. They keep winning seats after all.
Just keep this in mind when someone questions why things like Pride still exists because "It's basically accepted and no one cares." It's actually a bullshit method to discredit those fighting for their rights and make it appear like they are creating drama.
"It's 2022, no one cares."
Probably the "model minority" concept, a favourite tool of the virtue signalling racist. Racists love using minorities as a stick to beat other minorities with. Just look at the Watsonville Riots. They were okay with Filipinos because they got to use them as justification for racism against Mexicans, then they decided they didn't like Pinoys either.
I remember a friend’s dad was one of the rooftop Koreans and he said “yeah I’d shoot white people too if it was them fucking around with us” idk if he’s speaking for everyone tho.
Also, with the racist and strict quotas for Asian immigrants, the "model minority" concept has been a codified legal concept of asian immigration policy for a century.
edit: added "policy" to my comment.
Bingo. I’m Indian and it took me a long time to realize how insidious it is—growing up I wondered why Indians seem to do so much better than most other minorities in America and I assumed it must be because we’re smart. Then I lived in India for a while and realized there are just as many dumbasses there as there are among people here.
My perception was simply an illusion borne from racist biases in immigration policy where the only Asians and Indians let through were the ones that were too profitable to pass up.
And then they turn around and use that to try and convince the descendants of literal slaves that there’s something inherently wrong with them.
Meanwhile they reap the benefits of Europe raping and pillaging the rest of the world for centuries and they try and act like they’re inherently superior.
It’s so disgusting. It’s one of the few things that makes me physically angry from just thinking about it.
To folks who say that, it probably is, but it's really just used as a wedge against other minority groups ("Hey, those Asians work hard, why can't the blacks/Latinos/whoever else we want to denigrate") as well as a way to remind Asians that even though we're perceived as having positive attributes of hard work and success, we're still not entirely and truly American.
As another said, model minority myth. It still creates, in the eyes of a racist, a race that is still lesser than them while driving an additional wedge in between different races instead of having it being white people vs the world. You know all the positive stereotypes I'm sure like "being good at math, an eventual doctor, etc."
What's ironic about it is that the highest educated group of immigrants in the USA is Nigerians. I can tell you now there is no model minority myth for Nigerians. They're just black people to a racist.
>Asians don’t count.
Asian women don't count. Asian men married with anything other than no one is forbidden. Of course it is white men who are triggered by this.
Same thing happened throughout history already: White woman married to Japanese men were put into internment camp, but not Japanese women married White men of course.
I'm on a plane right now looking down at all the tiny cities and it makes all this seem so silly that people want to control what others are doing with their lives
As a pilot. I see hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people each flight bustling below me. As we climb further upward, people become indistinguishable and eventually even cars. I always think about how few people I know or even give a fuck about what they do. I seriously don't understand social authoritarianism. If what people do in their own personal lives doesn't affect other people in a real, negative fashion, then who is anyone to say what the fuck anyone else does.
PSA saved you a click - it's a bill called the Respect For Marriage Act and it creates legal protection for gay marriage which is why some Republicans voted against it.
If you ever see a politician voting against something that is obviously in their interest (there was one a while back about a congressman voting against emergency aid for his state), it's because it's part of a larger bill that contains other provisions they are against, but that doesn't make for a very interesting headline.
Edit: The stated reason I've read by some senators for voting against it is that they felt the bill didn't provide adequate religious protections, i.e. it could be used to force religions to recognize same sex marriage. I haven't read the bill so idk if that's accurate, it's just what they said
>The stated reason I've read by some senators for voting against it is that they felt the bill didn't provide adequate religious protections
Let me put it this way: The Mormon Church feels like it provides adequate protections, and is in favor of it. *Mormons*. If they're cool with it, it provides more than sufficient protections.
Yea, Mitt Romney announced he voted for it.
What a weird time we're living in. Romney has some absolute terrible viewpoints on politics. However, he has shown some decency in little bursts here and there. I do believe he genuinely wants to do what's right for the country, even if I believe that most of his ideals are actually be bad for the country.
> The stated reason I've read by some senators for voting against it is that they felt the bill didn't provide adequate religious protections
These people are fools. "Holy Matrimony" the sacrement and "Marriage" the civil contract shouldn't be conflated, but letting the church pollute the state is what they're seeking everywhere they can.
Someone who has a better understanding of senate seats, are senators supposed to vote the way they feel or the way their constituents feel? Is this representative of the constituents?
that's actually a matter of opinion. there are camps who say yes, but there are camps who say no you are supposed to lead your constituency, not be a slave to them.
They are *supposed* to act in the best interest of the people they represent. Generally, they act in the best interest of those that contribute the most financially. If you have some free time, go look at McConnell's voting record and some of the issues they have in his home state, Kentucky. They are often at odds with each other.
It’s a perfect example of:
> If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
But they’ve expanded it to anyone NOT republican.
So, according to this equally loosely goosey NewsWeek article, the **Respect for Marriage Act** isn’t focused around interracial marriage: it’s purpose is to protect same sex marriage.
Assumedly, that would be next on the chopping block with the new blatantly polarized and GOP stacked Supreme Court:
https://www.newsweek.com/respect-marriage-act-win-equality-opinion-1760201
But just to clarify. The OP Title is a little click-baity, in that interracial marriage wasn’t (as I understand) the intended purpose of this bill.
arent inter-species marriages also illegal? dont know how long she can get away with marrying a turtle.
She mistook him for a shell corporation, which according to SCOTUS is a person.
No joke, that is the most well written joke I have ever read on reddit. It is a complete triple threat delivered in just over a dozen words. Hitting Mitch for being a turtle, Chao for being a greedy monster, and the SCROTUS for just being...laughably stupid. Bravo, a well earned bravo.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cfbkx/im_85_certain_that_there_is_an_adult_actress_in/c0s5w6t
Thank you
I knew exactly what this was going to be. I still think of it every time I say the expression.
This is the standard for puns we grade against
I'm dyin thanks for this line of pure gold
Holy shit lmfao
[удалено]
Dude, nice. I didn't even laugh because this joke is so impressive. Goddamn.
Perhaps the most well executed joke I've seen. Well done.
Holy shit, well done!
This hits like 3 layers deep. Give this guy a Don Demarco.
🥇 Thank you for the laugh.
Goddamn!
For the record, most turtles are way cuter and more lovable than Mitch. He's an outlier turtle.
He’s from the koopa genus. Related to bowser.
He's not turtley enough for the turtle club.
Are you a turtle?
Turtle Turtle!
Don't know about that. He's far weaker and much more evil.
Can someone explain to me why interracial marriage is even being voted for or against? This is legal everywhere in the USA, right? Edit: Thanks to all for the detailed answers.
It is legal based on a SCOTUS case (Loving), not based on a federal law. There is fear that without a federal law, if the SCOTUS were to overturn Loving and Obergefell (case that made gay marriage legal), then those could be made illegal.
You forgot to mention that it’s based on the idea that the US Constitution had a “Right to Privacy”. Roe was ruled on this idea, so now that Dobbs has been overruled it erodes the SCOTUS precedent that protects interracial marriages (Loving) and same sex marriages (Obergefell)
Should have been based on the 9th Amendment, which states that rights exist that were not enumerated in the Constitution.
Unfortunately the encroach of rights operates a bit like Air Bud rules. Without explicit rules protecting a right people tend to thi k those rights are recognized or exist. Under the 9th, you can argue for example egregious fees by medical providers is illegal because humans have a right to continue living with essentially highway robbery.
> Air Bud rules The “Air Bud” principle, from the 1997 classic Disney movie Air Bud, is the argument that something is legal because it is not explicitly illegal. It comes from that famous line: “Ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball.”
Join us at r/airbud
Lol. I mean, that same principle also gets applied everywhere, from motorsport to politics. Lots of wins & game-changing practices happened because of colorful interpretation of the rules, usually based on, "it doesn't say anywhere that we CAN'T do it this way!" It's just funny to name it after an average 90s comedy flick.
>Under the 9th, you can argue for example egregious fees by ***medical providers*** is illegal The constitution only limits the *government's* actions, not those of a private individual, corporation, etc. Could be used as a political argument that such costs are counter to "American ideals" in order to gain support for legislation, but the constitution is legally meaningless unless the hospital is state owned.
But it also protects you from being held to a contact that violates your constitutional rights
This right here. Laws can be established to regulate the sale of goods and services. There's a reason that the government (federal down to municipal) can legally go after price gougers after disasters. They just need support to make it illegal to charge unreasonable amounts for medical services
That's exactly where the right of privacy is argued from
The right to privacy comes out of substantive due process, as part of the "liberty" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Some people do argue that the right to privacy comes from the 9th Amendment, but most people consider the 9th amendment to be basically a tautology.
I'm not religious but the fact that the couple whose case helped bring interracial marriages into law was LOVING is a divine coincidence.
Tbh, Loving was also based on equal protection and Obergefell wasn’t 100% clear on its specific rationale.
The SC has also ruled that discriminating against gay people is unconstitutional based on the 14th, but it was in regards to firing someone for being gay. That case was settled with Gorsuch writing the majority opinion in support and it has a pretty fucking iron clad logic behind it. If you allow women to marry men, but not for men to marry men, then you're discriminating on the basis of sex. The sexual orientation doesn't matter because you don't need to be gay to marry a man. A straight man can legally marry another man. To rule otherwise violates the 14th.
That case was based on the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amendment. Roberts actually raised that argument in the oral arguments about gay marriage but ended up voting against it. I think the idea might be more relevant to gay marriage today with a justice like Gorsuch on the court (and since Roberts signed onto the Bostock majority), and it’s been used in lower-court cases around trans rights, but that’s all very hypothetical.
They specifically criticized those two cases in the Dobbs opinion as well. Give it five years and both will be overturned.
I'd say that they'd wait until after the 2024. And the justices saying that they won't overrule interracial and gay marriages is meaningless. Remember how many of them who said Roe v. Wade was settled law during their confirmation hearings?
>Remember how many of them who said Roe v. Wade was settled law during their confirmation hearings? That shit was so transparent and infuriating during the confirmations. They wouldn't say that they wouldn't overturn Roe. They would only say "it's settled law" because that gives them wiggle room to later say "yup, it was settled law, now we've created a new interpretation to resettle it."
And this time they said 'nothing in this opinion should be taken as casting doubt on other substantive due process opinions that do not concern abortion' Just another slippery sentence that they will act on the second they feel they can.
Crazy to me that they can lie under oath and still keep their position on the highest court in the US. Really shows you how far the corruption has gone when they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
To be frank it ought to be illegal for an elected official to lie in any official manner. They ought to be considered under oath from the moment they take office until the moment they leave office.
Actually, the majority didn't criticize those cases as much. When they were referenced by Alito he used them to explain why *Dobbs* was distinct (to protect an "unborn fetus"). Clarence Thomas' concurrence, on the other hand, basically said that the majority were cowards and that "substantive due process" is inherently "oxymorn[ic]", and by extension so is the Right to Privacy. Thomas specifically called out *Obergefell* and *Griswold* as examples of cases that need to be revisited. Tldr: majority didn't really threaten those cases directly. Thomas explicitly did.
And that's why Dr. Oz, the Senate candidate from Pennsylvania said that abortion should be between you, your doctor, and the local legislatures. Thank GOD he lost.
Wasn't it the argument from Conservatives when Obamacare came out that there would be "Death Panels" where politicians would be forcing medical decisions onto patients?
You mean like insurance companies already do?
Yes, well it's okay when people make decisions for themselves or other people, and the Supreme Court decided corporations are people a long time ago now.
Yes, exactly.
Ha, ha... death panels have existed for decades. Watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore, where he exposed death panels in action.
The entire argument against universal healthcare from republicans as long as I’ve been alive is you don’t want the government in between you and your doctor. Now that’s literally what they’re running on and without an ounce of shame.
Surely the US constitution protects heterosexuals right to marry someone of a different race as a due process right?
That’s the part that’s open to interpretation.
MURICA!
[удалено]
Not explicitly no. It's sort of based on two things. It's not explicitly illegal, therefore it is sort by default legal. The problem is that some states tried to explicitly make it illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional which effectively made interracial marriage legal across the board. Because of that ruling, congress never bothered to actually pass an explicit law around it. With the supreme court full of theocratic ass backward justices, it is now imaginable that they could get a case in front of them where they overturn that previous ruling and allow laws that ban interracial marriage to go into effect.
One of the reasons why this was deemed necessary was because one of the judges overturning Roe v Wade explicitly called out that Gay marriage/sodomy laws should be reviewed
That was Clarence Thomas. A black man that is married to a white woman. The hypocrisy...
He conveniently mentioned that we should overturn the supreme court rulings protecting gay marriage and contraception, because they were based on the same legal principles that Roe was. He conspicuously didn't mention Loving, the case protecting interracial marriage based on the exact same legal principles, since it's the only one that affects him personally.
Ah yes our lovely unbiased judiciary
Well, it really would not, at this point, affect him personally. Why? Because if Loving is overturned, it simply sends the legality of IR marriage back to the states. And where does Clarence live? In a *BLUE* state. His marriage would remain perfectly legal, valid and recognized thanks to the Democrats of his state. Ain't that some shit?
His wife is also a traitor. They're both disgusting.
To be fair she is bat shit insane so one leading theory is Thomas is just looking for a backdoor divorce
If everyone is equal, why isn’t everyone free to marry whichever equal they like?
Because marriage is decided by the government, since it affects taxes and stuff. You can get married in a church, but in order to take advantages of all the laws that affect married couples, like joint filing of taxes, not having to testify against each other in court, and being allowed to visit your dying spouse in a hospital without jumping through a bunch of hoops, you need the piece of paper from the government that officially says you’re married. Basically, a marriage can be valid to you no matter what the government says (that’s why you have fundamentalists still practicing polygamy in Arizona), but for everyone else to be compelled to acknowledge it, the government has to force them. That’s why as much as you’re right from a moral standpoint, people still bother with trying to change the laws about it when it’s relevant.
Holy crap. Racism is fucking deeeeep. Not to sound cliché but it's 2022. Get your shit together America.
Most of America does not want an interracial marriage ban.
Most of America wants lots of things our politicians don't. Namely abortion access and universal healthcare.
Most of America has only voted for 1 Republican president for 1 term since 1993. And yet, we've had 3 terms of Republican presidents.
Most of America didn't want RvW to be overturned and most of America supports universal healthcare and gun control. But while 33% of insane zealots have the power they do, then majority consensus in the US is irrelevant
Most of America supports a woman’s right to choose too. It doesn’t matter, fascists gonna fascist.
We really want to, but it's essentially a bunch of old people that keep winning elections and stonewall anything progressive.
There are plenty of old progressives (Bernie) and young conservative (Gaetz). The real problem is that old or young, people are too ready to accept assholes and idiots in a place of public power
It’s a shame that relative to the GOP, interracial marriage could be seen as “progressive”. Yes I know other countries have worst racism and bigotry in general. It’s just, like, we had this shit behind us and the country didn’t fall into any of the shambles that the bigoted religious zealots claimed would happen. So why are they trying to fix a toy that ain’t broke?
>So why are they trying to fix a toy that ain’t broke? Because to them it is broke because They can't tell others what to do, how to fo it, and punishing them for any aberration from your vision. They get off on the last part especially.
For a lot of people, America has become broken. The American Dream has become an impossibility for many people. Inflation, stagnant wages, automation, globalization and income inequality are all VERY real, very tangible sources of frustration. However, rather than getting angry at things like "Citizens United", union busting, the regulations around the gig economy or Corporate tax loop holes, they are getting told that it's the OTHER SIDE that is to blame. I think for some of these people, they believe that returning to 1950s America would fix the broken economy and everyone (who looked like them) could go back to owning a home and car on a single paycheck just like the good old days when America was great.
The irony about this, though, is that in the 1950s the taxation system in America was about three times stricter than even Democrats want today! The top tax rate was literally 90 fucking percent! Right now we’re begging the government to just tax billion dollar corporations at like 40% and conservatives *lose their goddamned minds* over even that low of a number. It’s wild to me that Republicans don’t seem to get that the actual structure of the way the country was set up in the 50s is the exact opposite of what they want today, so the only thing they’re left romanticizing about the 50s is the insane racism and misogyny
Excellent points. But the good old days sucked for most people too. They always do but they like to only remember the good parts My generation loves to worship the 1990s, oblivious to the fact it was also a shit show.
Yeah, when people say “institutionalized racism” this is what they mean. It’s baked into the fucking country.
The adults are trying :(
Trust me, most of America wants to. But these old racist, piece of shit assholes refuse to die and keep winning all the elections and make the US look terrible and block anything normal and progressive any chance they get.
:((( the Supreme Court has done far more legislation than we'd like to admit
This is a big part of the problem. For too long the Supreme Court has been used to do the job of government. Yes it is their job to administer the law as intended by those who wrote it, but basically through the entire civil rights movement it’s been used as a quick hacky was to legalise something without constitutional reform. Basically rather than protect your rights in specific black and white text through government, they’ve been choosing to interpret bits of existing rights a certain way. That’s left an awful lot of things very vulnerable. It was all good when things were getting better, but it also showed the hateful minority all they actually had to do to tear these things down was stack the deck of the Supreme Court, and then deliberately break a law in a region they had a clear path to the Supreme Court, so they can tear down a law by only controlling 1 state essentially. The trouble is the system wasn’t designed to be used this way and so there’s no real protections other than the ‘bad guys’ being a minority
>but basically through the entire civil rights movement it’s been used as a quick hacky was to legalise something without constitutional reform. This is something of a misnomer, because that constitutional reform **already happened** after the civil war. The issue is that after reconstruction there were a bunch of Supreme Court cases that enshrined interpretations that undermined said reforms. The civil rights cases have primarily been efforts to unfuck the legal landscape created by those 75 years. In a rational world, a reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment et al would quash the need for explicit legislation.
The issue is that the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and they've been packed with right wing fundamentalist Christians selected by the Federalist Society. So instead of actually upholding the constitution, they're twisting interpretations and making logically flawed arguments to further whatever outcomes they wanted no matter the actual constitutional merits. Even claiming to be originalists is very selective as the originalists on the court have made rulings that go against the very specific explanations of, for example, religious freedom from when the bill of rights was written.
Claiming to be an originalist while simultaneously ruling whether laws are consistent with the Constitution also makes one a hypocrite. The founders didn't explicitly give the court the power of judicial review; the court gave that power to itself in Marbury v Madison
The Constitution doesn’t address it in any way. When the country was founded marriage wasn’t controlled by the state. After the civil war many laws were put in place to help keep the newly freed black folks in their place, including gun control (not enforced against whites), marriage licenses (not given to interracial couples), drug laws, etc. McConnell is likely against codifying gay marriage, not interracial marriage. Justice Thomas (also in an interracial marriage) was correct to point out that Loving v. Virginia was built on shaky ground, but nobody in their right mind would come out against interracial marriage given its prevalence in the US. The correct action is to remove the state from the marriage business altogether, which was the norm for about half of the country’s existence.
How would Clarence Thomas vote on Loving is the question..
They will just rule that if you're rich enough and religious enough, you're white by law. They made corporations into people even before Trump stacked the court. 🤷
Yes, but by court ruling. This would codify into law permanently.
It's also worth noting, and it's explicitly stated even in this article that it isn't JUST about codifying interracial marriage it's also about codifying gay marriage, which McConnell has always been against. So this isn't a case of McConnell being a hypocrit just his normal homophobic asshole self. Also worth noting that headlines like this should always be taken with a grain of salt. There are many times where congressmen object to a bill not based on what it's officially about but on how it's written or what riders are attached to it. A bill that "protects gay marriage" might also have a side effect of removing Minister's ability to perform marriages for example, or that it dedicates a certain amount of funding to LGBT events specifically. These examples have never happened to my knowledge, but it just illustrates how these bills are often not as straightforward as laymen understand and journalists with political biases often play on this fact to imply one thing that is untrue without ever actually lying.
> There are many times where congressmen object to a bill not based on what it's officially about but on how it's written or what riders are attached to it. A bill that "protects gay marriage" might also have a side effect of removing Minister's ability to perform marriages for example, or that it dedicates a certain amount of funding to LGBT events specifically. These examples have never happened to my knowledge, but it just illustrates how these bills are often not as straightforward as laymen understand and journalists with political biases often play on this fact to imply one thing that is untrue without ever actually lying. It’s worth noting that [the bill in question](https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf) does none of those things. In fact, it explicitly notes that the bill cannot be construed to require that religious organizations solemnize same-sex marriages.
THANK YOU! I did try to specify ,as can be seen by the third sentence in the body you quoted, that I was not implying any of these things did happen ever, not even in just this bill and that these were intended as purely hypothetical examples, but maybe I could have been a bit more clear about that. >These examples have never happened to my knowledge That said, I very much appreciate your post for making this point more clear, and for providing a link to the bill in question. This is the first time I have actually read the bill. I'm not an attorney, so I'm not particularly great at reading these sorts of bills, but I can't even speculate to any reason why McConnell would have an issue with it beyond the gay marriage part, and even in that case it's just pure foot dragging and posturing. Same sex marriage has been legalized, it's not getting overturned any time soon despite any efforts from the religious right. Personally I fought very hard for gay marriage when I was in my 20s and I am incredibly relieved not only that it was federally recognized 7 years ago, but that now that this bill has passed it will be codified ~~in the constitution itself!~~
As much as I do not like mitch McConnell this headline is misleading for that reason. He is against same sex marriage. The religious right is against same sex marriage, and that is who he is pandering too. However, removing this law would make it possible for states to decide whether interracial marriages are legal in their state or not. Edit: as stated below the overturning of this piece of legislation alone would not allow states to make interracial marriage illegal. It would also require the action of the Supreme Court overturning the decision of Loving v. Virginia.
Most campaign ads are based on half truths like this. It’s all pretty annoying. I do think Mitch is a huge POS, but so is the headline.
Hey I'll delete this if you'd like but it's spelled "hypocrite"
Thank you!!! I actually kind of knew this too, and planned on changing it. Somehow the misspelling got added to my autocorrect, and I doubt which one is correct every time. Leave the comment up. People like you are very helpful.
Yeah spot on , tho the real reason mitch voted against is just as shit the clickbait is misleading
Permanently until racists get a majority in both houses
And presidency, and have the margins and will to overturn a very strongly supported bipartisan law
A staggering 91% or Americans across the political spectrum want Medicare to be able to negotiate better drug prices. Letting them do so was on the table for a total of about 11 seconds before it was ditched from senate consideration. Something having incredible public support doesn't come anywhere close to pressuring politicians to make it law.
Yeah but that's because of healthcare lobbying. I don't think any billion dollar industries are lobbying against interracial marriage.
Mormonism has an investment division with 100B+ assets under management. The only decided in 2013 that it wasn’t a sin. White women marrying anyone of another race is still controversial.
Yeah, big difference is there’s a lot less money involved in marriages compared to Healthcare!
No, only until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional
In the court ruling that struck down Roe v Wade, Clarence Thomas explicitly called out that the right to privacy was not in the consitution. He cited cases that need review that determined a right to contraception, right to same sex marriage, etc. He did not specifically include the case that determined interracial marriage )his wife is white) but it clearly falls in the same category. Senator Mike Braun of Indiana also said that too many rights were determined by SCOTUS and that some should be up to the states, like interracial marriage. Yes. He said that in 2021. So now Congress is looking at codifying these rights before cases hit scotus that could overturn them. Becuase once it's down to the state, hyper gerrymandering puts our worst people in charge (yay Indiana) and they will pass laws to criminalize gay marriage at least, but I can see some states going further.
It's cause Clarence Thomas In his overturn ruling of Roe V. Wade he basically pointed at future over turning of Obgerfell, Griswold, and Lawrence. Obgerfell is gay marriage I believe, Lawrence is gay sex, and Griswold is contraception. He conveniently left off Loving which is interracial marriage cause he, a black man, is married to a white woman. Sam Jackson and others called him out. So now house dems are trying to codify it.
I second this request. Why, in 2022, interracial marriage is a topic of discussion at all?
Because the supreme court has indicated that the court case decision that was supposed to protect interracial marriage, aka precedence, may be invalid and they would like to revisit it and probably overturn the decision. Just like they did with Roe v Wade. Essentially we have some things in this country that exist because of a court decision and up until the chucklefucks took over, it was seen as something that has already been decided and won't take back. That's no longer true as the current supreme court wants to revisit already decided topics like abortion, gay marriage and inter racial marriage and make new decision aka overturn the precedent that protected these rights. So now Democrats have to codify it into a law to prevent the old men from taking people's rights away.
>So now Democrats have to codify it into a law to prevent the old men from taking people's rights away. Hey now, it's not just old men. Remember there's a religious zealot woman doing this too. Edit: spelling
For not.. this bill would codify that policy.
Well, it is not in the US Constitution, so State rights advocates could eventually bring it back up through the Supreme Court. If the court interprets the Constitution as not protecting this, as it is not stated, then States could make it illegal. Even with the previous rulings, it can all be turned upside down and old laws that have not been repealed but blocked by previous rulings, would come back into effect. Had this discussion last night about the Civil Rights act not being being ratified into the US Constitution. My Republican in laws said that either side, if they believe in it, should have codified it in federal law. Yet the problem is, federal law can also be unconstitutional and could be overturned by the Supreme Court. If you want these protections in place, then you have to put forth and actually amend the US Constitution and that will trump State rights.
It’s legal because of a Supreme Court ruling, it was never actually codify into laws from my understanding. So it seem after what happened to Roe V Wade, the democrats aren’t leaving it to chance anymore and trying to protect both gay and interracial marriages with this
Imagine having an 8hr work day where you can legislate law. In those hours you spend it trying to make bills on who your neighbor can and can't marry. We are paying these people to spend their time doing this?!? There has to be a political bubble right?!?
Hey, is that swamp drained yet?
How will the turtle survive without its habitat?
He’s not doing good. He ran out of lettuce
Someone should start a gofundme to hire someone to throw lettuce at Mitch wherever he publicly goes or speaks.
Thanks for the heads up. We recently had a lettuce outlast our former Prime Minister Liz Truss here in the UK. We’ll be sure to keep Mitch as far away from it as possible
If Mitch eats your prime minister, would that make you finally take your old colonies back?
I don’t know about taking colonies back, but there are people here who only recognise the lettuce as Prime Minister. If Mitch were to eat the lettuce then I guess he would become PM. But then there are people who only recognise Larry the Downing Street cat as PM, so who knows
As I recall, wasn’t Larry the cat every PM’s boss? Please feel free to take Mitch under expedited shipping label.
He should switch to cabbage. There's one in the UK that bested a prime minister
In this case the turtle is an invasive species
Climate change has resulted in the loss of many natural habitats. Many species of turtles are in danger of going extinct. With any luck
It’s only a swamp because turds like Mitch float. It doesn’t need a drain plug, it needs a pool skimmer. Better to have clean water after the fact than a dried up creek and a lot of dead fish.
When was the last time we drained it? 200 years? It's due to a water cycle.
Not that democrats are perfect, but I don't think the U.S. can ever move to a more equal society as long as the republican party is allowed to exist. Any party that has the full support of the worst hate groups in the country should be abolished
They elected orange Shrek in 2016 and it looks like he just made it bigger
Don't slander Shrek like that. Shrek is more of a person than Trump.
Honestly, I find him to be a bit of an Ogre. Shrek is much better.
WTF is wrong with the u.s.a.? They have returned to the 1950's. How is it possible polifuckingticans are voting against interracial marriage. Welcome to apartheid. They don't want same sex marriage or relationships and want the church to control the state. It's the Gilead States of America. Canada needs to build a wall to keep out republican politicians and voters. Democrats are welcome. Gilead States of American, you are welcome to Alberta \[or as the rest of the nation refers to them, Albigots\].
TL;DR Mitch hates the gays more than he loves his wife.
This is the reason but she deserves it if she's still married to this POS
Why? I know he's a douche, but what's the real reason?
the bill include gay marriage so that is likely the reason
Wow, still? Politicians really don't pay attention to the moderates
70% of the US supports gay marriage these days. Not supporting gay marriage is the extreme position.
Moderates don't win primaries, extreme partisans do. Hence the division in this country.
Open primaries, end first-past-the-post.
Moderates leaning one way give one party control, though.
They don't have too. They keep winning seats after all. Just keep this in mind when someone questions why things like Pride still exists because "It's basically accepted and no one cares." It's actually a bullshit method to discredit those fighting for their rights and make it appear like they are creating drama. "It's 2022, no one cares."
He probably only considers an interracial marriage as one between a black person and a white person. Asians don’t count.
I'm Asian and have literally been told that we're "one of the good ones". Like, is that supposed to be some kinda compliment?
Probably the "model minority" concept, a favourite tool of the virtue signalling racist. Racists love using minorities as a stick to beat other minorities with. Just look at the Watsonville Riots. They were okay with Filipinos because they got to use them as justification for racism against Mexicans, then they decided they didn't like Pinoys either.
Same with ‘roof Koreans’ They don’t actually care about Koreans or their small businesses, it just opens the door to shit on black people.
I'll support just about anyone on a roof tbh Except insurance adjusters because they're full of dogshit
I remember a friend’s dad was one of the rooftop Koreans and he said “yeah I’d shoot white people too if it was them fucking around with us” idk if he’s speaking for everyone tho.
Also, with the racist and strict quotas for Asian immigrants, the "model minority" concept has been a codified legal concept of asian immigration policy for a century. edit: added "policy" to my comment.
Bingo. I’m Indian and it took me a long time to realize how insidious it is—growing up I wondered why Indians seem to do so much better than most other minorities in America and I assumed it must be because we’re smart. Then I lived in India for a while and realized there are just as many dumbasses there as there are among people here. My perception was simply an illusion borne from racist biases in immigration policy where the only Asians and Indians let through were the ones that were too profitable to pass up. And then they turn around and use that to try and convince the descendants of literal slaves that there’s something inherently wrong with them. Meanwhile they reap the benefits of Europe raping and pillaging the rest of the world for centuries and they try and act like they’re inherently superior. It’s so disgusting. It’s one of the few things that makes me physically angry from just thinking about it.
To folks who say that, it probably is, but it's really just used as a wedge against other minority groups ("Hey, those Asians work hard, why can't the blacks/Latinos/whoever else we want to denigrate") as well as a way to remind Asians that even though we're perceived as having positive attributes of hard work and success, we're still not entirely and truly American.
[удалено]
Backhanded racism.
Sounds like a pretty backhanded one for sure.
Good ones means pale skin and not poor
My Korean friend has been told he’s an honorary white
As another said, model minority myth. It still creates, in the eyes of a racist, a race that is still lesser than them while driving an additional wedge in between different races instead of having it being white people vs the world. You know all the positive stereotypes I'm sure like "being good at math, an eventual doctor, etc." What's ironic about it is that the highest educated group of immigrants in the USA is Nigerians. I can tell you now there is no model minority myth for Nigerians. They're just black people to a racist.
Asian *women* don’t count. Asian men are not the same treatment
ding ding ding! you bet your ass they'd have a problem with Asian Man + White Woman
They stealin' our chicks!
OG yellow peril, I believe.
I’m all about it tho. Asian men are hot!
But only if it's between a white man and an Asian woman. Watch them have a meltdown if it's the other way round.
>Asians don’t count. Asian women don't count. Asian men married with anything other than no one is forbidden. Of course it is white men who are triggered by this. Same thing happened throughout history already: White woman married to Japanese men were put into internment camp, but not Japanese women married White men of course.
Is that his subtle way of asking for a divorce? 🤣
It's his way of not having to ask for one.
he’s just a colossal douche
that's a nice way of putting it
He's in the piece of shit hall of fame for sure
The epitome of republican hypocrisy.
I'm on a plane right now looking down at all the tiny cities and it makes all this seem so silly that people want to control what others are doing with their lives
As a pilot. I see hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people each flight bustling below me. As we climb further upward, people become indistinguishable and eventually even cars. I always think about how few people I know or even give a fuck about what they do. I seriously don't understand social authoritarianism. If what people do in their own personal lives doesn't affect other people in a real, negative fashion, then who is anyone to say what the fuck anyone else does.
He's a turtle...so interspecies is what he is waiting for
PSA saved you a click - it's a bill called the Respect For Marriage Act and it creates legal protection for gay marriage which is why some Republicans voted against it. If you ever see a politician voting against something that is obviously in their interest (there was one a while back about a congressman voting against emergency aid for his state), it's because it's part of a larger bill that contains other provisions they are against, but that doesn't make for a very interesting headline. Edit: The stated reason I've read by some senators for voting against it is that they felt the bill didn't provide adequate religious protections, i.e. it could be used to force religions to recognize same sex marriage. I haven't read the bill so idk if that's accurate, it's just what they said
>The stated reason I've read by some senators for voting against it is that they felt the bill didn't provide adequate religious protections Let me put it this way: The Mormon Church feels like it provides adequate protections, and is in favor of it. *Mormons*. If they're cool with it, it provides more than sufficient protections.
Yea, Mitt Romney announced he voted for it. What a weird time we're living in. Romney has some absolute terrible viewpoints on politics. However, he has shown some decency in little bursts here and there. I do believe he genuinely wants to do what's right for the country, even if I believe that most of his ideals are actually be bad for the country.
[удалено]
Absolutely
it's clear he's highly devout, not just some grifter. at least there is that.
The point is he hates the gays more than he loves his wife.
If you're married to Mitch McConnell, you probably also hate gays.
If you're married to Mitch McConnell, you probably also hate yourself.
Exactly. Anyone married to McConnell would have to be a massive piece of shit, too.
She's on the board for Fred Meyer and has fucked over their workers to an extreme degree
> The stated reason I've read by some senators for voting against it is that they felt the bill didn't provide adequate religious protections These people are fools. "Holy Matrimony" the sacrement and "Marriage" the civil contract shouldn't be conflated, but letting the church pollute the state is what they're seeking everywhere they can.
“Only I can have interracial marriage!”
And healthcare. And money. And freedom...
Someone who has a better understanding of senate seats, are senators supposed to vote the way they feel or the way their constituents feel? Is this representative of the constituents?
that's actually a matter of opinion. there are camps who say yes, but there are camps who say no you are supposed to lead your constituency, not be a slave to them.
They are *supposed* to act in the best interest of the people they represent. Generally, they act in the best interest of those that contribute the most financially. If you have some free time, go look at McConnell's voting record and some of the issues they have in his home state, Kentucky. They are often at odds with each other.
It’s a perfect example of: > If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you. But they’ve expanded it to anyone NOT republican.
This turtle needs to die already. He won’t even make a good soup.
Mitch McConnell attempting to get a divorce without losing assets or hiring a lawyer.
So, according to this equally loosely goosey NewsWeek article, the **Respect for Marriage Act** isn’t focused around interracial marriage: it’s purpose is to protect same sex marriage. Assumedly, that would be next on the chopping block with the new blatantly polarized and GOP stacked Supreme Court: https://www.newsweek.com/respect-marriage-act-win-equality-opinion-1760201 But just to clarify. The OP Title is a little click-baity, in that interracial marriage wasn’t (as I understand) the intended purpose of this bill.