Marriage prohibitions

The battle over inter-racial
marriage in the United States

Sponsored link.

Laws forbidding inter-racial marriage:

In the US, miscegenation laws that restricted marriages on the basis of race were once enforced in most states. For example:

	In the 1660s, Maryland became the first colony to prohibit interracial marriages. 1
	By 1750, all the southern colonies as well as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania made interracial marriages illegal. 1 For example, Virginia had a law stating that "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." (Code Ann. A7 20-57)
	During the 1950s, half of the states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
	By the early 1960's at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes at one time. 1

	in Maryland, when slavery was introduced in 1664, "the law also prohibited marriages between white women and black men.... between 1935 and 1967, the law was extended to forbid marriage between Malaysians with blacks and whites. The law was finally repealed in 1967." 2
	The first court to overturn an anti-miscegenation law was, predictably, the California Supreme Court in 1948. 3
	By 1967, 16 states still had anti-miscegenation laws in place.

"In case after case, legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooting in received natural law." ₁ For example, in 1869, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that:

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity." ₄

"Eternity" came to a crashing halt 98 years later, in 1967.

The end of miscegenation laws: the Loving v. Virginia case:

In a most ironically named case "Loving v. Virginia," Richard and Mildred Loving -- an inter-racial married couple -- were arrested in the early morning of 1959-JUL-11 by police who entered into their bedroom. They had been married five weeks before in the adjacent District of Columbia. The couple pleaded guilty to a felony under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1662. ₅ They could have each received a 5 year prison term; instead, they were partly exiled from their home state for 25 years. Each was allowed to return to Virginia, but not together. The judge apparently ignored the principle of separation of church and state as well as the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution when delivering his decision. Part of his ruling stated:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Although often referred to as black, Mildred Loving regarded herself as a Native American of Rappahannock and Cherokee heritage. ₅

Ms. Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for help. He referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union who took the case. They lost at the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, but appealed to the US Supreme Court. In 1967, the court unanimously overturned the Virginia law and similar miscegenation laws of 15 other states. ₆ Persons of different racial backgrounds have been able to marry throughout the US ever since.

Blogger Jack M. Balkin wrote:

"In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause both because they violated principles of racial equality and because they abridged a fundamental right to marry. The case is doctrinally important for many reasons, including the Court's recognition that the Equal Protection clause protects certain fundamental rights, for its recognition of a fundamental right to marry, for its application of strict scrutiny to strike down racial classifications (an idea first raised in the Korematsu decision, which had nevertheless upheld the classification), and for its embrace of an anti-subordination as well as an an anti-classification model of race equality." ₇

In 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision, Mildred Loving released a statement dealing with the denial of the right to marry to persons because of their race and/or sexual orientation. ₇ She wrote:

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry."

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Mildred Loving died on 2008-MAY-02, having greatly influenced American culture by her refusal to tolerate racial bigotry and second-class citizenship.

The aftermath of Loving v. Virginia:

The laws and constitutions of some states still banned inter-racial marriages. However the decision by the Supreme Court annulled them. The state of South Carolina still had an anti-miscegenation law on the books as late as 1998, although it was not applied. As of 2000-OCT, only the state of Alabama still had a clause in its constitution prohibiting a black person or descendent of a black person from marrying a white person. The people of Alabama voted in the general special election of 2000-NOV-7 to delete the clause from their constitution. However the vote was narrow. Only 60% of voters supported the repeal.

It may be worth noting that a rapid change in the U.S. occurred over about four decades:

	In 1948, about 90% of American adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it. 8
	In 1967, about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage and 48% felt that marrying a person of another race should be prosecuted as a criminal act. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S. 9,10
	In 1991, those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority. 9
	Opposition dropped at about 1 percentage point per year between 1948 and 1991.

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. "Lewis et al., v. Harris, et al. Superior Court of New Jersey: Brief of plaintiffs in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss," 2003-MAY-8, at: http://www.lambdalegal.org/
2. Eddie Becker, "Chronology on the history of slavery and racism," at: http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html 
3. Perez, supra, 198 P.2d 17. Quoted in Ref. 1.
4. Scott v. State, 39 GA 321 (1869). Quoted in Ref. 1.
5. Douglas Martin, "Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68," The New York Times, 2008-MAY-06, at: http://www.nytimes.com/
6. The text of Loving v. Virginia is at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
7. Jack M. Balkin, "Mildred Loving Speaks," Balkinization blog, 2008-MAY-06, at: http://www.intellisearchnow.com/
8. John Rogers, "Kung Fu Monkey" blog, 2005-MAR-16, at: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/
9. Gail Mathabane, "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought," USA Today, 2004-JAN-25.
10. Sean Robert Cahill, "Same-sex marriage in the United States: Focus on the facts," Lexington Books, (2004), Page 12. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store

Related material:

	A list of books on a related topic -- same-sex marriage -- on this website
	Susan Dudley Gold, "Loving V. Virginia: Lifting the Ban Against Interracial Marriage (Supreme Court Milestones)," Benchmark Books, (2007). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
	Karen Alonso, "Loving V. Virginia: Interracial Marriage (Landmark Supreme Court Cases)," Enslow Publishers, (2000). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.

Copyright 1997 to 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2008-MAY-07
Author: B.A. Robinson

Web ReligiousTolerance.org