Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

In June 2016, a 10-month-old Navajo boy was placed with Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, a former civil engineer and an anesthesiologist, respectively, after his Navajo mother (who lived in Texas) was found to be using drugs.[5] The father of the child is Cherokee. In 2017 a Texas state court terminated the parental rights of both the biological parents.[fn 1][7] Under the provisions of the ICWA, the Navajo Nation stepped in and sought to place the child with a Navajo family, but that failed and the Brackeens were allowed to adopt the child.[8] The Brackeens later attempted to adopt the boy's sister in state court, but the girl's extended family also sought to take in the girl.[9] The Brackeens then filed suit in federal court to overturn the ICWA on the grounds of racial discrimination.[10] This approach would "completely erase [...] tribal sovereignty" according to Lauren van Schilfgaarde, a tribal sovereignty advocate.[fn 2][12]

lol

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Tribal sovereignty" is cope for defeated "tribes" who are drug addicts.

Wish Canada's Supreme Court made similar rulings.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"natives" avoid using drugs for any length of time challenge (impossible!)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The RFMA would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and would require each state to recognize marriages that are valid in the state where they were performed.

So when California legalizes marrying children and dogs this would require other states to recognize those marriages?

The legislation is intended to protect same-s*x and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court could potentially overturn landmark rulings such as 2015's Obergefell vs. Hodges, which effectively legalized same-s*x marriage nationwide.

Previously, marriage laws differed by state, and ceremonies performed in one state were not necessarily considered valid in other states, particularly in the case of same-s*x unions. The Supreme Court found that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional in the 1967 case Loving vs. Virginia.

So with zero indication that the Supreme Court is revisiting Loving vs. Virginia we now realize that this is really about buttsex marriage and not interracial marriage as the article tries to suggest.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyburrito:

Snapshots:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.