Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KSIChancho t1_iydmyqj wrote

Reply to comment by Conscious_Ad7105 in Josh Hawley voting against inter racial and same sex marriages by SearchingBleach

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

5

RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyeam0u wrote

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

7

KSIChancho t1_iyel3t2 wrote

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

5

Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf2cny wrote

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

1

RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyellmr wrote

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

0

KSIChancho t1_iyen69h wrote

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

−2

Infernal_Arugula t1_iyf2pdn wrote

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

1

NoodlesrTuff1256 t1_iyehfwx wrote

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

1

RollOutTheGuillotine t1_iyei5f7 wrote

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

1

ialsohaveadobro t1_iyeboil wrote

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

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

3

mrs_bookdragon t1_iyf81qi wrote

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

2