Interracial Marriage Laws: Unconstitutional And A Historical Injustice

The topic of interracial marriage has a long and complex history, with laws prohibiting it in many places around the world. In the United States, the issue of interracial marriage laws came to a head in 1967 with the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. The case centred around Mildred and Richard Loving, a couple residing in Virginia, where interracial marriages were prohibited at the time. The Lovings had travelled to Washington D.C. to get married and were subsequently arrested and sentenced to prison upon their return to Virginia. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, citing the Fourteenth Amendment and concluding that such laws were rooted in invidious racial discrimination. This ruling effectively legalised interracial marriage across the United States, striking down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws in sixteen states.

The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia

In order to get married, the Lovings travelled to Washington D.C., where interracial marriages were legal. However, when they returned to their home state, they were arrested under a Virginia state law that prohibited their marriage. The couple was found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison, which was suspended for 25 years on the condition that they leave Virginia.

The Lovings appealed their case, arguing that their conviction violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld the state's Racial Integrity Act, stating that the state had an interest in preserving the "racial integrity" of its constituents. The Lovings then took their case to the United States Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren on June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Virginia Court's ruling. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required strict scrutiny to be applied to all race-based classifications. Additionally, the Court cited the Due Process Clause, concluding that the law was rooted in invidious racial discrimination and could not satisfy a compelling government interest.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." The Loving decision was a significant milestone in the Civil Rights Movement, striking down laws that banned marriages between people of different races as unconstitutional.

Interracial marriage laws in Nazi Germany and apartheid-era South Africa

In the United States, interracial marriage laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia. The court ruled that such laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. This decision marked a significant turning point in the civil rights movement and ended the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws across the country.

Now, turning to the specific contexts of Nazi Germany and apartheid-era South Africa:

Interracial Marriage Laws in Nazi Germany

During the Nazi regime in Germany, from 1933 to 1945, interracial marriage laws were enacted as part of the Nuremberg Laws, which were passed in 1935. These laws were rooted in Nazi racial ideology, which promoted the idea of Aryan racial purity and sought to preserve the so-called 'German blood'.

The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, enacted in September 1935, specifically forbade marriages and sexual relations between Germans classified as 'Aryans' and those classified as Jews. This law also applied to marriages where only one spouse was a German citizen. In November 1935, the law was extended to include "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring", further criminalizing interracial relationships.

Those who violated these laws faced severe consequences. Extramarital intercourse between 'Aryans' and non-Aryans' was considered 'race defilement' (*Rassenschande*) and was punishable by imprisonment, often followed by deportation to concentration camps. The Nazi government also encouraged divorce for couples in mixed marriages, offering easy legal divorce procedures and allowing the 'Aryan' spouse to retain most of the common property.

Despite the strict enforcement of these laws, there were some exceptions. Privileged mixed marriages, where the 'Aryan' spouse was considered the dominant partner, received certain exemptions from anti-Semitic policies, such as wearing the yellow badge. Additionally, in cases where the couple had children who were not enrolled in a Jewish congregation, they were discriminated against as *Mischlinge* (mixed-race) rather than *Geltungsjuden* (Jews by classification).

Interracial Marriage Laws in Apartheid-Era South Africa

In South Africa, interracial marriage laws were enacted as part of the apartheid system, which was introduced in 1948. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, passed in July 1949, prohibited marriages and sexual relationships between White people and people of other race groups. This law was part of a broader policy of racial segregation and was enforced by the apartheid government.

To facilitate the implementation of this Act, the Population Registration Act of 1950 required all individuals in South Africa to register as members of one of four officially defined racial groups: White, Coloured, Indian, and Black. The Immorality Act of 1950 further criminalized sexual relations between Whites and non-Whites, extending an earlier ban on sexual relations between Whites and Blacks.

Those who violated the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act faced arrest, jail sentences, and social ostracism. The law applied to all South African citizens, even if their interracial marriages had taken place in another country. The act was eventually repealed in 1985 by the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act, which finally allowed interracial marriages and relationships in South Africa.

In summary, both Nazi Germany and apartheid-era South Africa implemented strict interracial marriage laws as part of their broader racial ideologies and policies of segregation. These laws had significant consequences for those who dared to challenge them, contributing to a legacy of discrimination and injustice.

The history of interracial marriage laws in the US

17th Century

The first laws criminalizing marriages between whites and non-whites were enacted in the colonies of Virginia and Maryland in the 1660s. These laws pertained to marriages between whites and black or mulatto enslaved people and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland criminalized marriages between white women and black men, ordering the enslavement of white women who married black men. In 1691, the Virginian House of Burgesses passed a law forbidding intermarriage between free blacks and whites, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time a law restricted marriage based solely on race.

18th Century

In 1705, Virginia expanded its anti-miscegenation law to impose massive fines on ministers who performed interracial marriages. Pennsylvania passed a similar law in 1725, which was later repealed in 1780 as part of a series of reforms to abolish slavery. In 1776, seven of the Thirteen Colonies enforced laws against interracial marriage.

19th Century

During the 19th century, a number of states permanently repealed their anti-miscegenation laws, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. However, newly established western states continued to enact such laws, and anti-miscegenation sentiments remained strong in many parts of the country.

20th Century

In the early 20th century, anti-Asian xenophobia led to the targeting of Asian Americans by anti-miscegenation laws. The Cable Act, for example, stripped the citizenship of any US citizen who married an "alien ineligible for citizenship," which primarily affected Asian Americans due to the racial quota system of the time. Additionally, some states, such as Oklahoma in 1908 and Louisiana in 1920, banned marriages between people of different races.

In 1912 and 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery of Georgia proposed an amendment to the US Constitution to ban interracial marriage nationwide, in response to African American boxer Jack Johnson's marriages to white women. This proposal sparked a wave of support for anti-miscegenation laws across the country.

In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled in Perez v. Sharp that California's anti-miscegenation laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment, becoming the first state since 1887 to overturn its anti-miscegenation law. This ruling raised constitutional questions in other states with similar laws, leading to the repeal or overturning of such laws in 14 states by 1967.

1967

In 1967, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Loving v. Virginia, declaring that state bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling legalized interracial marriage across the United States and led to the remaining state anti-miscegenation laws being repealed. However, it was not until 2000 that Alabama became the last state to officially legalize interracial marriage by removing the ban from its state constitution.

The Loving case's impact on interracial marriage laws

The Loving v Virginia case of 1967 was a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court that had a significant impact on interracial marriage laws in the country. The case was brought by Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and a woman of Black and Native American descent, who had been deemed to have an illegal marriage according to Virginia state law. The Lovings, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that "anti-miscegenation" statutes were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. This decision struck down existing laws against interracial marriage in 16 states, including Virginia, and is considered a watershed moment in the dismantling of "Jim Crow" race laws.

The impact of the Loving case extended beyond just the legal realm. It is considered a significant milestone in the Civil Rights Movement, as it ended prohibitions on interracial marriage and dealt a major blow to segregation. The ruling affirmed the freedom to marry as a fundamental civil right and a basic human right, which could not be infringed upon by the state. This set an important precedent and paved the way for future court cases concerning civil rights and equality.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, some states were slow to alter their laws. Alabama was the last state to officially accept the ruling and remove an anti-miscegenation statute from its state constitution in 2000. This highlights that while the Loving case had a profound impact on a national level, there was still work to be done to ensure equal marriage rights for interracial couples across all states.

The Loving case also had implications for same-sex marriage. In 2015, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited the Loving case in his opinion on the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage across the United States. This shows that the Loving case's impact extended beyond race-based marriage bans and contributed to a broader interpretation of marriage equality.

Today, the anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision is commemorated each year as "Loving Day," a holiday celebrating multiracial families. This further underscores the significance of the Loving case and its lasting impact on American society and culture.

Interracial marriage laws in California

California's history with interracial marriage laws is a complex one, with the state playing a significant role in both the legalization and restriction of such unions.

History of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in California

California has had anti-miscegenation laws since it became a state in 1850. Initially, these laws only restricted marriages between whites and "negroes or mulattoes". However, with the wave of Chinese immigration during the Gold Rush, California expanded its anti-miscegenation laws to include other racialized groups. Following the widely accepted racial classification scheme of German race theorist Johann Frederich Blumenbach, Chinese immigrants were categorized as "Mongolians" and perceived as a threat to the white population.

In 1880, California Civil Code Section 60 was amended to explicitly prohibit marriages between whites and "Mongolians". This amendment reflected the fears and racist attitudes of the time, with delegates to California's 1878 Constitutional Convention expressing concerns about Chinese immigrants "overrunning" or "Mongolizing" their state. The chairman of the Committee on Chinese explicitly contrasted the "Chinaman" with the "prudent, intelligent, sympathetic white man", claiming that interracial marriage posed a threat to the "great privilege of American citizenship".

Legal Challenges to Anti-Miscegenation Laws in California

Despite the existence of these laws, interracial couples in California continued to challenge them in court, exposing inconsistencies in racial categorization. One notable case involved Salvador Roldan, a Filipino man, who was denied a marriage license to his white wife in 1933. Roldan appealed the decision, arguing that Filipinos should be classified as "Malayan", which would allow them to intermarry with whites. The court agreed with Roldan's argument, but this decision sparked backlash from white politicians, who quickly amended the law to include "Malayans" in the list of races prevented from marrying whites.

Another significant case was Perez vs. Sharp in 1948, which involved Andrea Perez (a white woman of Mexican-American descent) and Sylvester Davis, a Black man. The couple was barred from marrying due to California's anti-miscegenation laws but appealed the decision, arguing that these laws violated their religious freedom. The California Supreme Court agreed and struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage, making California the first state since Ohio in 1887 to overturn such laws. The court held that marriage is a fundamental right and that restrictions based solely on prejudice violate the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection.

The End of Anti-Miscegenation Laws in California and Beyond

The Perez vs. Sharp case set a precedent, leading to 14 states subsequently striking down their interracial marriage bans. The remaining states' anti-miscegenation laws were eliminated by the landmark Supreme Court case Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, which cited Perez vs. Sharp as a precedent. This case, brought by an interracial couple from Virginia, unanimously ruled that state bans on interracial marriage violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, making interracial marriage legal across the United States.

While California played a pivotal role in officially legalizing interracial marriage, it took decades for taboos surrounding cross-cultural couples to begin to fade across the state and the nation. Even today, racism remains an ongoing issue, and the complex history of interracial marriage laws continues to shape societal attitudes and dynamics.

Frequently asked questions