Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Republican nominee for governor in the state, declined to definitively say whether he would defend an interracial marriage ban if one was in place in his state.
The question has recently been in the news after Brad Schimel, a Republican nominee for attorney general in Wisconsin, said he would have defended a ban on interracial marriage in his state if one existed and he were attorney general (Schimel later said he shouldn’t have answered that hypothetical).
In an interview with the San Antonio Express News editorial board Abbott refused to say whether he would defend a ban.
“Right now, if there was a ban on interracial marriage, that’s already been ruled unconstitutional,” Abbott said. “And all I can do is deal with the issues that are before me … The job of an attorney general is to represent and defend in court the laws of their client, which is the state Legislature, unless and until a court strikes it down.”
Abbott, whose wife is Hispanic, was then pressed on the question after a reporter for the Express-News said he was being vague.
“Actually, the reason why you’re uncertain about it is because I didn’t answer the question. And I can’t go back and answer some hypothetical question like that,” Abbott said.
The TPM Polltracker average finds Abbott with a 13.6 point lead over Democratic opponent state Sen. Wendy Davis.
Of course he would defend a ban on interracial marriage so long as no one comes after him for being married to a non-White woman. He believes strongly in “I have mine- screw you.”
He’s a scumbag and he knows his base constituency is Fed-fearing Bible-thumping racist assholes. And sadly (I’m in Texas) he’s going to win.
“refused to say whether he would defend a ban.”
Refused to say whether he would fight a ban.
FIFY
“Abbott, whose wife is Hispanic”
Awkward…
Followup question: Are you sidestepping the question because you are a racist, or because you depend on the votes of racists?
However, in a private GOP fundraiser after the event, Abbott stated “just because a court has said something is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. Especially when it comes to freedom of association, a state just has to put its foot down and say ‘your overreach stops here.’”