PDA

View Full Version : Anti-miscegenation Laws


rice cracker
05-24-2004, 08:25 AM
I found this article through "Mixed Media Watch" and thought to post it here, NOT as some lovey dovey "Love is colorblind" BS, but just to point out (again) how very recent history, had the status quo been allowed to remain, we would most likely not be here today.


In the past, it wasn't merely that interracial relationships were frowned upon -- they were against the law. Forty states once prohibited the marriage of a white person to a person of color. The marriages were considered immoral and unnatural.

In 1948, a state court ruling made California the first state to say that bans on interracial marriages -- known as anti-miscegenation laws -- were unconstitutional. But as late as the mid-60s, Virginia upheld its law making interracial marriage a crime.

Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned anti-miscegenation statutes for good, declaring that men and women had a constitutional right to marry regardless of race.

The landmark case -- Loving vs. Virginia -- was brought by Mildred and Richard Loving, a married couple convicted of miscegenation in 1959 before a trial judge who declared, "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 shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The Lovings were given a choice of spending a year in jail or leaving the state for 25 years. They left, but they sued, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court ruling of 1967.

"That's not to say we suddenly started seeing blacks and whites walking down the aisles together," said California relationship expert April Masini, author of the no-holds-barred advice book, "Date Out of Your League." "But it was the beginning of a steady increase in mixed couples.

"Though we can say that love is blind and hard to define, there are certain types of people who are simply attracted to other types of people, and this is true when it comes to race," Masini added.

More of the article: http://www.timesunion.com/aspstories/story.asp?storyID=250501

>:^|
05-24-2004, 08:41 AM
"Love is colorblind" BS

It isn't colorblind? But race is of so little importance! I couldn't care of somebody was purple, red or green if I loved them! :tongue:

But not all children of mixed heritage result from mixed marriages. As Little Strom would attest.

I was surprised that the number of miscegenators is so low:

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/interractab2.txt

rice cracker
05-24-2004, 08:43 AM
Who's Little Strom?

>:^|
05-24-2004, 09:53 AM
Who's Little Strom?

The late Strom Thurmond's illegitimate daughter:

http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/news/2710968/detail.html

rice cracker
05-24-2004, 10:00 AM
Oh, right, right.

kimpossible
05-24-2004, 10:03 AM
It isn't colorblind? But race is of so little importance! I couldn't care of somebody was purple, red or green if I loved them! :tongue:



Because we're all part of the human race... so if you had a nickel for every time you heard that how rich would you be now?

The stats were a little old but it was interesting to note the differences between same race couples by ethnicity and interracial by ethnicty. Even more interesting that they categorized it by 1) specified group and white 2) specified group and other.

SunWuKong
05-24-2004, 01:00 PM
i've read stories of the past about interracial couples living together but not legally married or actually marrying in Mexico.