Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (14357)	11/11/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You tell me, and also, what is the Democrats' position on the question? G. W.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (14357)	11/11/1998 2:15:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Dipy, far be it from me to defend a Republican <g>, but David Beasley,South Carolina's Republican ex-Governor, surely supported amending the State constitution to remove the ban on interracial marriage. For one thing, this was the guy who insisted on taking the Confederate flag down from the State Capitol. His stand obviously hurt him among far-right voters. See, for example: dumpbeasley.com Secondly, the ballot initiative came from the state legislature. The ban on interracial marriage hasn't been enforced since 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled against a similar provision in the Virginia Constitution. The legislators decided it was time to get this "obsolete" provision out of the Constitution. The Senate, by unanimous voice vote, adopted a resolution to strike the provision; the House passed a similar resolution 99-4 (Ronald Reagan Jr., in his talk show, blasted the Republicans who voted against it). I got this from checking out some South Carolina newspapers. They don't mention Beasley's stand, but I am sure that he would not have been to the right of all but four South Carolina legislators on this issue (especially in view of his stance on the flag). BTW, the voters proved to be more reactionary than the politicians, in this case. The ballot initiative passed, but by a vote of 65% to 35%. In other words, 35% of the voters would prefer to keep the ban on the books, even if it is unenforceable. (The only races mentioned, incidentally, are "white" and "black" -- mulattoes and anyone with as much as 1/8 "black blood" being considered black.) The big issue in the South Carolina gubernatorial election, I gather, was not interracial marriage, but the state lottery... jbe