R i g h t a r d i a: Marriage and miscegenation laws

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Marriage and miscegenation laws

The first miscegenation laws that criminalized marriage and sex between whites and blacks were enacted in the colonial Virginia and Maryland. This prevented black slaves and indentured white females from marrying.

These laws were also the legal basis for racism in what was to become the United States.

Miscegenation laws were uncommon is South America and as a results a multiracial socieities emerged in most of these counties. Many racial barriers in the US were not broken down until the 1960s When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Acts into law. The Supreme Court also ruled miscegenation unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

In the 1660s, Virginia and Maryland regulated marriage between whites and blacks. these laws only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants.

In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages. In 1691 Virginia was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry. Maryland followed suit in 1692.

It took the Supreme Court 300 years later to right the miscegnation wrong.

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.

Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and and Massachusetts. After the United States was established, similar laws were enacted in territories and even states which outlawed slavery.

In the early part of the 20th century, the requirement for a marriage license was used to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states had such laws, which have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, has suggested that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.

Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so no authorization from the state is required.

Ron Paul has said some interesting things about marriage. He says, each individual could define marriage as he or she pleases, so long as force is not used to impose the definition on others. He sees marriage as First Amendment free speech.

Paul recently said in December in the Boston Globe that he favors leaving regulations involving marriage up to the states.

Rightrdia agrees that marriage licenses are not the federal government's business.

Paul said at a New Hampshire to the Globe:

Why should the government be telling you what marriage is all about? You might have one definition. I have another definition."

My personal opinion is government shouldn't be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter.

sources:

graphic source: http://www.conspireforchange.org/?p=132