Post AQbJiCx9rFrHXcPIhM by MasonBee@sfba.social
 (DIR) More posts by MasonBee@sfba.social
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiB36w9QpdVB1hQ by MasonBee@sfba.social
       2022-12-14T04:56:18Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Wondering: where's the toots on the interracial marriage part of today's ruling in the USA? I get there's protections afforded for LGBTQIA+ people (doesn't go far enough imo) but I've not seen ONE person mention anything but queer rights today.For context, I'm queer, but I am also an ally to many other marginalized groups. Have I just missed Black and brown voices on this, or is nobody discussing it? Even in news stories, the focus is on us queers. Did I miss the other convo? #BlackMastadon
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiBThLIhOxxcG8m by nuthaven@noc.social
       2022-12-14T05:26:47Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @MasonBee every time the interracial part is mentioned, I momentarily think "... so, yeah, that needed protecting too" and then I can feel my brain short out and avoid thinking about it.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiBr5wJPk8WYwbo by cmdrmoto@hachyderm.io
       2022-12-14T05:34:14Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @nuthaven @MasonBee same. As a queer white person, the fact that “miscegenation” was even potentially a thing again - I’m abashed to admit, it simply didn’t cross my mind. That stuff was supposed to be SETTLED, wasn’t it? I’m not defending the thought process, just observing in hopes of finding insight.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiBsVr2Y4CvE4oq by MasonBee@sfba.social
       2022-12-14T05:01:19Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       For clarity: I don't need to join anyone's conversation. I learn a lot by listening. But I have seen nothing to listen in on. I'm just surprised at the silence.I'm not sure if the voices are not being lifted or no one has anything to say. So I thought I'd ask.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiCU5bKbe5So5OC by gwangung@sfba.social
       2022-12-14T05:44:55Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @nuthaven @cmdrmoto @MasonBee There is also the fact that there are generations of products of interracial marriages: children, grandchildren and even some great grandchildren. Those generations are harder to put back in the bottle.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiCx9rFrHXcPIhM by MasonBee@sfba.social
       2022-12-14T05:48:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gwangung @nuthaven @cmdrmoto I posted a response toot a moment before you added your comment to the thread, but I think this still applies. Link to my comment:https://sfba.social/@MasonBee/109510437440428567
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiDHicoIyZO1ikK by gwangung@sfba.social
       2022-12-14T05:59:47Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cmdrmoto @MasonBee @nuthaven Well, harder….not that it still isn’t there. It’s that there’s conflict with the evidence of literal generations that hasn’t been built yet for same sex marriage. Two different kinds of inertia at play for interracial….(Though I should add the anti-blackness elements probably play strongest in interracial marriages…..)
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiDnciBpGAKxCTY by MasonBee@sfba.social
       2022-12-14T06:19:17Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @gwangung I think you're right that the anti-Blackness or anti-Asianness, or whatever race-based bigotry is employed (in this country, laws prohibiting Black people marrying white people was the prevalent) is more complex. Because skin color is readily apparent.@sgt1372 re: Loving, that's exactly why they added it to the current bill. Because Roe v Wade was overturned. And there are so many right now who would roll back both Loving and Obergefell in a heartbeat if elected. 😪 @cwebbtampa
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiEDV9yWfSb3roO by nuthaven@noc.social
       2022-12-14T09:06:23Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @MasonBee @gwangung @sgt1372 @cwebbtampa to be honest, I don't think it's very *likely* that the current court would overturn Loving.Thomas is in an interracial marriage himself, and consistency isn't important to him: he's perfectly capable of finding bad-faith reasons to overturn one and not the other.still: the precedent is only five years older than Roe, and I do *not* want to be taking chances. some of those laws, held in abeyance since 1967, are probably still on the books.
       
 (DIR) Post #AQbJiEd1d4wUjl0Fay by mansr@society.oftrolls.com
       2022-12-14T15:02:31Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @nuthaven @MasonBee @gwangung @sgt1372 @cwebbtampa Nothing is too insane for Thomas. I would not be in the least surprised if he favoured a ban on interracial marriage. Remember what he wrote in his dissent in Obergefell: "Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved." Someone capable of saying that with a straight face is capable of anything.