Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were laws passed by most states that prohibited interracial marriage and interracial sexual relations. Some such laws predate the establishment of the United States, some dating to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery.[1]. Most states had repealed such laws by 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional in the remaining 16 states.[2][3] The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery.[4]

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Specific forms
 
U.S States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws:
  No laws passed
  Before 1888
  1948 to 1967
  June 12, 1967

Typically defining mixed race marriages or sexual relations as a felony, these laws also prohibited the issue of marriage licenses and the solemnization of weddings between mixed race couples and prohibited the officiating of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned marriage between whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians.[5]

In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent"; Louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans (and from 1920–1942, concubinage as well); and Maryland in 1935 banned marriages between blacks and Filipinos.[6] While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, most western and plains states also enacted them.

Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in United States Congress in 1871, 1912–1913 and 1928,[7][8] a nationwide law against mixed race marriages was never enacted. Prior to the California Supreme Court's ruling in Perez v. Sharp (1948), no court in the United States had ever struck down a ban on interracial marriage. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court (the Warren Court) unanimously ruled in Loving v. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.

Colonial era

The first laws criminalizing marriage and sex between whites and non whites were enacted in the colonial era in the English colonies of Virginia and Maryland, which depended economically on slavery.

At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland criminalized such marriages—the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.

A sizable number of the early indentured servants in the British American colonies were brought over from the Indian subcontinent by the British East India Company.[10] Anti-miscegenation laws discouraging interracial marriage between white Americans and non-whites affected South Asian immigrants as early as the 17th century. For example, a Eurasian daughter born to an Indian father and Irish mother in Maryland in 1680 was classified as a "mulatto" and sold into slavery.[10] Anti-miscegenation laws there continued into the early 20th century. For example, the Bengali revolutionary Tarak Nath Das's white American wife, Mary K. Das, was stripped of her American citizenship for her marriage to an "alien ineligible for citizenship."[10] In 1918, there was considerable controversy in Arizona when an Indian farmer B. K. Singh married the sixteen-year-old daughter of one of his white tenants.[11]

In 1685, the French government issued a special Code Noir restricted to Louisiana, which banned the marriage of Catholics and non-Catholics in that colony.[12] However, interracial cohabitation and interracial sex were never prohibited in French Louisiana (see plaçage). The situation of the children (free or slave) followed the situation of the mother.[13] Under Spanish rule, interracial marriage was possible with parental consent under the age of 25 and without it when the partners were older. In 1806, three years after the U.S. gained control over the state, interracial marriage was once again banned.[14]

Jacqueline Battalora [15] argues that the first laws banning all marriage between whites and blacks, enacted in Virginia and Maryland, were a response by the planter elite to the problems they were facing due to the socio-economic dynamics of the plantation system in the Southern colonies. The bans in Virginia and Maryland were established at a time when slavery was not yet fully institutionalized. At the time, most forced laborers on the plantations were indentured servants, and they were mostly European. Some historians have suggested that the at-the-time unprecedented laws banning "interracial" marriage were originally invented by planters as a divide-and-rule tactic after the uprising of European and African indentured servants in cases such as Bacon's Rebellion. According to this theory, the ban on interracial marriage was issued to split up the ethnically mixed, increasingly "mixed-race" labor force into "whites," who were given their freedom, and "blacks," who were later treated as slaves rather than as indentured servants. By outlawing "interracial" marriage, it became possible to keep these two new groups separated and prevent a new rebellion.

After independence

In 1776, seven of the Thirteen Colonies enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state.

The Quaker planter and slave trader Zephaniah Kingsley, Jr. publicly advocated, and personally practiced, racial mixing as a way toward ending slavery, as well as a way to produce healthier and more beautiful offspring. These views were tolerated in Spanish Florida, where free people of color had rights and could own and inherit property. After Florida became a U.S. territory in 1821, he moved with his multiple "wives", children, and slaves to Haiti.[16]

For the radical abolitionists who organized to oppose slavery in the 1830s, laws banning interracial marriage embodied the same racial prejudice that they saw at the root of slavery. Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison took aim at Massachusetts' legal ban on interracial marriage as early as 1831. Anti-abolitionists defended the measure as necessary to prevent racial amalgamation and to maintain the Bay State's proper racial and moral order. Abolitionists, however, objected that the law, because it "distinguished between 'citizens on account of complexion,'" violated the broad egalitarian tenets of Christianity and republicanism as well as the state constitution's promise of equality. Beginning in the late 1830s, abolitionists began a several-year petition campaign that prompted the legislature to repeal the measure in 1843. Their efforts—both tactically and intellectually—constituted a foundational moment in the era's burgeoning minority-rights politics, which would continue to expand into the twentieth century.[17]

As the US expanded, however, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such as Illinois[18] and California[19] enacted such laws.

Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama legalized interracial marriage for some years during the Reconstruction period. Anti-miscegenation laws rested unenforced, were overturned by courts or repealed by the state government (in Arkansas[20] and Louisiana[21]). However, after white Democrats took power in the South during "Redemption", anti-miscegenation laws were re-enacted and once more enforced, and in addition Jim Crow laws were enacted in the South which also enforced other forms of racial segregation.[22] In Florida, the new Constitution of 1888 prohibited marriage between "a white person and a person of negro descent" (Article XVI, Section 24).

A number of northern and western states permanently repealed their anti-miscegenation laws during the 19th century. This, however, did little to halt anti-miscegenation sentiments in the rest of the country. Newly established western states continued to enact laws banning interracial marriage in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.[23] Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia never enacted them.

Pace v. Alabama

The constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1883 case Pace v. Alabama (106 U.S. 583). The Supreme Court ruled that the Alabama anti-miscegenation statute did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the court, both races were treated equally, because whites and blacks were punished in equal measure for breaking the law against interracial marriage and interracial sex. This judgment was overturned in 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, where the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.[2][3]

Repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, 1948–1967

In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled in Perez v. Sharp (1948) that the Californian anti-miscegenation laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the first time since Reconstruction that a state court declared such laws unconstitutional, and making California the first state since Ohio in 1887 to overturn its anti-miscegenation law.

The case raised constitutional questions in states which had similar laws, which led to the repeal or overturning of such laws in fourteen states by 1967. Sixteen states, mainly Southern states, were the exception. In any case, in the 1950s, the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws was still a controversial issue in the U.S., even among supporters of racial integration.

In 1958, the political theorist Hannah Arendt, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany,[24] who escaped from Europe during the Holocaust, wrote in an essay in response to the Little Rock Crisis, the Civil Rights struggle for the racial integration of public schools which took place in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957, that anti-miscegenation laws were an even deeper injustice than the racial segregation of public schools. The free choice of a spouse, she argued in Reflections on Little Rock, was "an elementary human right": "Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs." Arendt was severely criticized by fellow liberals, who feared that her essay would arouse the racist fears common among whites and thus hinder the struggle of African Americans for civil rights and racial integration. Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka against de jure racial segregation in education, Arendt argued that anti-miscegenation laws were more basic to racial segregation than racial segregation in education.

Arendt's analysis of the centrality of laws against interracial marriage to white supremacy echoed the conclusions of Gunnar Myrdal. In his essay Social Trends in America and Strategic Approaches to the Negro Problem (1948), Myrdal ranked the social areas where restrictions were imposed by Southern whites on the freedom of African-Americans through racial segregation from the least to the most important: jobs, courts and police, politics, basic public facilities, "social equality" including dancing and handshaking, and most importantly, marriage. This ranking was indeed reflective of the way in which the barriers against desegregation fell under the pressure of the protests of the emerging Civil Rights Movement. First, legal segregation in the army, in education and in basic public services fell, then restrictions on the voting rights of African-Americans were lifted. These victories were ensured by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the bans on interracial marriage were the last to go, in 1967.

Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 94% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.[25] However, attitudes towards bans on interracial marriage quickly changed in the 1960s.

By the 1960s, civil rights organizations were helping interracial couples who were being penalized for their relationships to take their cases to the Supreme Court. Since Pace v. Alabama (1883), the Supreme Court had declined to make a judgment in such cases. But in 1964, the Warren Court decided to issue a ruling in the case of an interracial couple from Florida who had been convicted because they had been cohabiting. In McLaughlin v. Florida, the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida state law which prohibited cohabitation between whites and non-whites was unconstitutional and based solely on a policy of racial discrimination. However, the court did not rule on Florida's ban on marriage between whites and non-whites, despite the appeal of the plaintiffs to do so and the argument made by the state of Florida that its ban on cohabitation between whites and blacks was ancillary to its ban on marriage between whites and blacks. However, in 1967, the court did decide to rule on the remaining anti-miscegenation laws when it was presented with the case of Loving v. Virginia.

Loving v. Virginia
Main article: Loving v. Virginia

In 1967, an interracial couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, successfully challenged the constitutionality of the ban on interracial marriage in Virginia. Their case reached the US Supreme Court as Loving v. Virginia.

In 1958, the Lovings married in Washington, D.C. to evade Virginia's anti-miscegenation law (the Racial Integrity Act). On their return to Virginia, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. The judge suspended their sentence on the condition that the Lovings leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. In 1963, the Lovings, who had moved to Washington, D.C, decided to appeal this judgment. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and 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 the races to mix.[26]

The Lovings then took their case to the Supreme Court of Virginia, which invalidated the original sentence but upheld the state's Racial Integrity Act. Finally, the Lovings turned to the U.S Supreme Court. The court, which had previously avoided taking miscegenation cases, agreed to hear an appeal. In 1967, 84 years after Pace v. Alabama in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.[2][3] Chief Justice Warren wrote in the court majority opinion that:[2][3]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", fundamental to our very existence and survival ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The Supreme Court condemned Virginia's anti-miscegenation law as "designed to maintain White supremacy".

Later events

In 1967, 17 Southern states (all the former slave states plus West Virginia plus Oklahoma) still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites. Maryland repealed its law at the start of Loving v. Virginia in the Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court ruling declaring such laws to be constitutional, the laws in the remaining 16 states ceased to be enforceable. Besides removing such laws from their statute books, a number of state constitutions were also amended to remove language prohibiting miscegenation: Mississippi in 1987, South Carolina in 1998 and Alabama in 2000. In the respective referendums, 52% of voters in Mississippi, 62% of voters in South Carolina and 59% of voters in Alabama voted in favour of the amendments. In Alabama nearly 526,000 people voted against the amendment, including a majority of voters in some rural counties.[27][28][29][30]

In 2009, Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Robert, Louisiana, refused to officiate a civil wedding for an interracial couple. A nearby justice of the peace, on Bardwell's referral, officiated the wedding; the interracial couple sued Keith Bardwell and his wife Beth Bardwell in federal court.[31][32] After facing wide criticism for his actions, including from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Bardwell resigned on November 3, 2009.[33]

As of September 9, 2019, eight states still required couples to declare their racial background when applying for a marriage license, without which they cannot marry. The states are Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota (since 1977),[34] Virginia, New Hampshire and Alabama. At that date, the Virginia law was challenged in court.[35] Within a week the state’s Attorney-General directed that the question is to become optional,[36] and in October 2019, a U.S. District judge ruled the practice unconstitutional and barred Virginia from enforcing the requirement.[37]

In 2016, Mississippi passed a law to protect "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions".[38] In September 2019, an owner of a wedding venue in Mississippi refused to allow a mixed race wedding to take place in the venue, claiming the refusal was based on her Christian beliefs. After an outcry on social media and after consulting with her pastor, the owner apologised to the couple.[39]

Summary
U.S. States, by the date of repeal of anti-miscegenation laws
     No laws passed (9 states: AK CT HI MN NH NJ NY VT WI; DC)
     Repealed through 1887 (11 states: IA IL KS MA ME MI NM OH PA RI WA)
     Repealed 1948–1967 (14 states: AZ CA CO ID IN MD MT ND NE NV OR SD UT WY)
     Overturned 12 June 1967 by Loving v. Virginia[40] (16 states: AL AR DE FL GA KY LA MO MS NC OK SC TN TX VA WV)

Laws repealed through 1887
StateFirst law passedLaw repealedRaces white people were banned from marryingNote
Illinois18291874Black
Iowa18391851BlackNot formally repealed; rather, the legislature quietly left that Territorial provision out of its first "Code of Iowa" (1851) after it became a state.[41]
Kansas18551859BlackLaw repealed before reaching statehood
Maine18211883Black, Native Americans
Massachusetts17051843Black, Native AmericansPassed the 1913 law preventing out-of-state couples from circumventing their home-state anti-miscegenation laws, which itself was repealed on July 31, 2008
Michigan18381883Blacks
New Mexico18571866BlacksLaw repealed before reaching statehood
Ohio18611887BlacksLast state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law before California did so in 1948
Pennsylvania17251780Blacks
Rhode Island17981881Blacks, Native Americans
Washington18551868Blacks, Native AmericansLaw repealed before reaching statehood
Wyoming18691882Blacks, Asians, FilipinosLaw repealed before reaching statehood, re-enacted after statehood, in 1913[42]

Laws repealed 1948–1967
StateFirst law passedLaw repealedRaces white people were banned from marryingNote
Arizona18651962Blacks, Asians, Filipinos, Indians ("Filipinos") and Indians ("Hindus") added to list of "races" in 1931. As interpreted by the Supreme Court of Arizona in State v. Pass, 59 Ariz. 16, 121 P.2d 882 (1942), the law prohibited persons of mixed racial heritage from marrying anyone.
California18501948Blacks, Asians, FilipinosUntil Roldan v. Los Angeles County, it was unclear whether the law applied to Filipinos.[43] Anti-miscegenation law overturned by state judiciary in Supreme Court of California case Perez v. Sharp. Most Hispanics were included in White category.
Colorado18641957Blacks
Idaho18641959Blacks, Asians
Indiana18181965Blacks
Maryland16921967Blacks, FilipinosRepealed its law in response to the start of the Loving v. Virginia case, and was the last state to repeal its law before the Supreme Court made all such laws unenforceable. Maryland also was one of the states to ban marriages between some peoples of color, preventing black–Filipino marriages in addition to Filipino–white and black–white marriages.
Montana19091953Blacks, Asians
Nebraska18551963Blacks, Asians
Nevada18611959Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, FilipinosOn December 11, 1958, a court order struck down the law forbidding marriage between Harry Bridges and Noriko Sawada, citing the California case Perez v. Sharp and declaring such laws infringements on the basic principles of freedom.
North Dakota19091955Blacks
Oregon18621951Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Native Hawaiians
South Dakota19091957Blacks, Asians, Filipinos
Utah18521963Blacks, Asians, FilipinosInitially enacted via the Act in Relation to Service
Wyoming19131965Blacks, Asians, Filipinos

Laws overturned on 12 June 1967 by Loving v. Virginia
StateFirst law passedLaw repealed[44]Races white people were banned from marryingNote
Alabama18222000 (constitution)BlacksRepealed during Reconstruction, law later reinstated
Arkansas18381973BlacksRepealed during Reconstruction, law later reinstated
Delaware18071974 (omission)
1986 (repeal)		Blacks[45]
Florida18321969BlacksRepealed during Reconstruction, law later reinstated (note law reinstated banning just blacks)
Georgia17501972Blacks, Native Americans
Kentucky17921974Blacks
Louisiana17241972, 1975BlacksRepealed during Reconstruction in 1868, law later reinstated in 1894[46]
Mississippi18221987 (constitution)Blacks, AsiansRepealed during Reconstruction under the 1868 constitution, law later reinstated by the 1890 constitution.
Missouri18351969Blacks, Asians
North Carolina17151970 (constitution)
1973 (law)		BlacksStarting in 1887, North Carolina also prevented marriages between Blacks and "Croatan Indians", but all other marriages between people of color were not covered by legislation
Oklahoma18971969BlacksOklahoma's law was unique in its phrasing, preventing marriages of "any person of African descent ... to any person not of African descent." This statute was invoked occasionally to void marriages between blacks and Native Americans.[47]
South Carolina17171970,1972 (law)
1998 (constitution)		Blacks, Native Americans, IndiansRepealed during Reconstruction, law later reinstated
Tennessee17411978Blacks
Texas18371969Blacks
Virginia16911968All non-whitesPrevious anti-miscegenation law made more severe by Racial Integrity Act of 1924
West Virginia18631969Blacks

Proposed constitutional amendments

At least three attempts have been made to amend the US constitution to bar interracial marriage in the United States.[48]

  • In 1871, Representative Andrew King, a Democrat of Missouri, proposed a nationwide ban on interracial marriage. King proposed the amendment because he feared that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give ex-slaves citizenship (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would someday render laws against interracial marriage "unconstitutional".
  • In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery, a Democrat of Georgia, introduced a proposal in the House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution. According to the wording of the proposed amendment, "Intermarriage between Negroes or persons of color and Caucasians... within the United States... is forever prohibited." Roddenbery's proposal was more severe because it defined the racial boundary between whites and "persons of color" by applying the one-drop rule. In his proposed amendment, anyone with "any trace of African or Negro blood" was banned from marrying a white spouse.
Roddenbery's proposed amendment was a direct reaction to African American heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's marriages to white women, first to Etta Duryea and then to Lucille Cameron. In 1908, Johnson had become the first black boxing world champion, having beaten Tommy Burns. After his victory, the search was on for a white boxer, a "Great White Hope", to beat Johnson. Those hopes were dashed in 1910, when Johnson beat former world champion Jim Jeffries. This victory ignited race riots all over America as frustrated whites attacked celebrating African Americans.[49] Johnson's marriages to and affairs with white women infuriated white Americans. In his speech introducing his bill before the United States Congress, Roddenbery compared the marriage of Johnson and Cameron to the enslavement of white women, and warned of future civil war that would ensue if interracial marriage was not made illegal nationwide:

No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainous character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the Negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [Applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratify it. ... Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. ... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.[50]

Roddenbery's proposal of the anti-miscegenation amendment unleashed a wave of racialist support for the move: 19 states that lacked such laws proposed their enactment. In 1913, Massachusetts, which had abolished its anti-miscegenation law in 1843, enacted a measure (not repealed until 2008, long after it was moot[51]) that prevented couples who could not marry in their home state from marrying in Massachusetts.[52]
  • In 1928, Senator Coleman Blease, a Democrat of South Carolina, proposed an amendment that went beyond the previous ones, requiring that Congress set a punishment for interracial couples attempting to get married and for people officiating an interracial marriage. This amendment was also never enacted.[53]
gollark: And yet it's far more memory-safe.
gollark: Rust also has no garbage collection.
gollark: See the ++ at the end? It means that C++ itself isn't great but stuff coming after it is useful!Seriously, postincrement is evil.
gollark: Given that Rust is basically saner C++.
gollark: Yes, and C++ has fewer than most.

See also

References
  1. Woodson, Carter G. (1918), "The Beginnings of the Miscegenation of the Whites and Blacks", The Journal of Negro History, 3 (4): 335–353, doi:10.2307/2713814, JSTOR 2713814
  2. "Loving v. Virginia". Oyez. Archived from the original on 2019-05-11. Retrieved 2019-10-03.
  3. "Loving v. Virginia". LII / Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on 2019-10-15. Retrieved 2019-10-03.
  4. Fredrickson, George M. (1987), The Black Image in the White Mind, Wesleyan University Press, p. 172, ISBN 0-8195-6188-6
  5. Karthikeyan, Hrishi; Chin, Gabriel Jackson (2011-04-14). "Preserving Racial Identity: Population Patterns and the Application of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes to Asian Americans, 1910-1950". SSRN 283998. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. Martin, Byron Curti, Racism in the United States: A History of the Anti-Miscegenation Legislation and Litigation, pp. 1026, 1033–4, 1062–3, 1136–7 (See version Archived 2019-04-20 at the Wayback Machine of article in the USC Digital collection)
  7. Courtroom History, Loving Day, archived from the original on 31 December 2007, retrieved 2008-01-02
  8. Edward Stein (2004), Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution regarding marriage (PDF), 82, Washing State University Law Quarterly, archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-12-01, retrieved 2008-01-04, archived from the original Archived March 7, 2008, at the Wayback Machine on 2006-08-12.
  9. Frank W Sweet (January 1, 2005), The Invention of the Color Line: 1691—Essays on the Color Line and the One-Drop Rule, Backentyme Essays, archived from the original on 2007-04-09, retrieved 2008-01-04
  10. Francis C. Assisi (2005), Indian-American Scholar Susan Koshy Probes Interracial Sex, INDOlink, archived from the original on 30 January 2009, retrieved 2 January 2009
  11. Echoes of Freedom: South Asian Pioneers in California, 1899-1965 - Chapter 9: Home Life, The Library, University of California, Berkeley, archived from the original on 18 February 2009, retrieved 2009-01-08
  12. Interracial Marriage and Cohabitation Laws, Redbone Heritage Foundation, retrieved 2008-01-04
  13. {fr} A. Mérignhac, Précis de législation & d'économie coloniales, librairie de la société du recueil Sirey, Paris 1912, p. 45
  14. Kimberly S. Hanger, Bounded Lives, Bounded Places: Free Black Society in Colonial New Orleans,1769-1803. Durham N.C., and London: Duke University Press, 1997.
  15. Battalora, Jacqueline (2013). The Birth of a White Nation: The Invention of White People and its Relevance Today. Houston Texas: Strategic Book Publishing and Rights Co.
  16. Schafer, Daniel L. (2013). Zephaniah Kingsley and the Atlantic World : Slave Trader, Plantation Owner, Emancipator. University Press of Florida. ISBN 9780813044620.
  17. Kyle G. Volk, Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy Archived 2019-04-20 at the Wayback Machine (Oxford University Press, 2014), 104-116.
  18. Steiner, Mark. "The Lawyer as Peacemaker: Law and Community in Abraham Lincoln's Slander Cases" Archived 2011-09-19 at the Wayback Machine "The Lawyer as Peacemaker: Law and Community in Abraham Lincoln's Slander Cases". September 19, 2011.. The History Cooperative
  19. enacted similar anti-miscegenation laws."Chinese Laborers in the West" Archived 2011-07-26 at the Wayback Machine Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program
  20. Robinson II, Charles F., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Archived 2011-09-05 at the Wayback Machine. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. (accessed January 4, 2007).
  21. "Miscegenation and competing definitions of race in twentieth-century Louisiana".
  22. Wallenstein, Peter, Tell the Court I love my wife
  23. Where were interracial couples illegal?, Loving Day, archived from the original on 31 December 2007, retrieved 2008-01-04
  24. John McGowan (15 December 1997). Hannah Arendt: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9781452903385.
  25. Gallup, Inc. "In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958". Gallup.com. Retrieved 1 May 2016.
  26. Tucker, Neely (June 13, 2006). "Loving Day Recalls a Time When the Union of a Man And a Woman Was Banned" Archived 2017-09-14 at the Wayback Machine. The Washington Post.
  27. Alabama removes ban on interracial marriage, USA Today, November 7, 2000, archived from the original on September 14, 2002, retrieved 2008-01-04
  28. Suzy Hansen (2001-03-08). "Mixing it up". Salon. Archived from the original on 14 April 2016. Retrieved 1 May 2016.
  29. https://web.archive.org/web/20141016171345/http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/03/24/less-than-50-years-ago-the-supreme-court-put-an-end-to-race-based-marriage-bans/. Archived from the original on October 16, 2014. Retrieved August 14, 2014. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  30. "Mississippi Race and Marriage, Amendment 3 (1987)". Ballotpedia.
  31. Sullivan, Eileen (October 16, 2009). "Man's halt of interracial marriage sparks outrage". The New York Times. Associated Press.
  32. "Humphrey v. Bardwell". Justia.
  33. "La. justice quits after interracial flap - US news - Life - Race & ethnicity - NBC News". NBC News. November 3, 2009. Retrieved 2011-04-18.
  34. "Why Does Minnesota's Marriage License Application Ask for Race?". Archived from the original on 2020-07-24. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
  35. "Couples were asked to tell their race for a Virginia marriage license. Now they're suing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-09-16. Retrieved 2019-09-10.
  36. "Virginia removes requirement to declare race on marriage forms". Archived from the original on 2020-06-03. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
  37. "Law Student Helps Change Virginia Marriage License". Archived from the original on 2020-07-23. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
  38. "House Bill 1523". Archived from the original on 2020-01-26. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
  39. "Mississippi wedding venue refuses interracial pair over owner's Christian faith". Archived from the original on 2019-12-02. Retrieved 2020-07-23.
  40. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina and Alabama repealed their laws during the Reconstruction period, but the laws were later reinstated and remained in force until 1967.
  41. "Did Iowa ever have an anti-miscegenation law?". State Library of Iowa.
  42. Bern Haggerty, Profile, WILLIAM JEFFERSON HARDIN: TWO STORIES ABOUT WYOMING'S FIRST BLACK LEGISLATOR, Wyoming Lawyer (February, 2000) (citing 1882 Wyo. Terr. Sess. Laws ch. 54)
  43. Min, Pyong-Gap (2006), Asian Americans: contemporary trneds and issues, Pine Forge Press, p. 189, ISBN 978-1-4129-0556-5
  44. Newbeck, Phyl (2008). Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving. SIU Press. p. 194. ISBN 9780809328574. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
  45. "Interracial Marriage in "Post-Racial" America". Archived from the original on 2019-05-25. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
  46. Brattain, Michelle (2005). "Miscegenation and Competing Definitions of Race in Twentieth-Century Louisiana". The Journal of Southern History. 71 (3): 621–658. doi:10.2307/27648822. ISSN 0022-4642. JSTOR 27648822.
  47. See for example Stevens v. United States, 146 F.2d 120 (1944)
  48. John R. Vile (2003), Encyclopedia of constitutional amendments, proposed amendments, and amending issues, 1789-2002 (second ed.), ABC-CLIO, p. 243, ISBN 978-1-85109-428-8
  49. Rust and Rust, 1985, p. 147
  50. Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503.
  51. "Governor signs law allowing out-of-state gays to wed". The Boston Globe. 2008-07-31. Archived from the original on 2012-10-21. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  52. "Big marriage rulings are coming in the next month". Gay People's Chronicle. 2006-02-17. Archived from the original on 2018-09-28. Retrieved 2009-09-11.
  53. Anti-Miscagenation laws, Reference.com, archived from the original on 2012-11-20, retrieved 2017-10-09

Further reading (most recent first)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.