Constitutional Ban on Interracial Marriage?

I suspect this is a low probability WI, but...

Between 1913 and 1948, 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws.. Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the federal District of Columbia never enacted them. (And Hawaii and Alaska were not states during this period). On three different occassions, a constitutional amendment on interracial marriages was proposed; first, in 1871, it was proposed due to fears that the 14th amendment would mandate interracial marriage; in 1913, it was proposed because of a prominent boxer's repeated marriages to white women; and then there was one last spurt in 1928.

Hrm. I'm not sure when you could get a push for a constitutional amendment; the laws on place on the ground were working well enough, and by the time of Loving and the Civil Rights movement I don't see how you get the northern states on board. But the number of states with restrictions suggests there was a narrow window when it would be plausible. But it's hard to see any of the Supreme Courts in the Plessy era making the sort of ruling which would lead to an amendment...
 
How did interracial marriage interact with the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution?

Perhaps states refusing to recognize marriages, or being afraid they would be forced to recognize them, would be the thing to lead to it?
 
Oh, that was never a constitutional issue. One of the defenses of the Defense of Marriage Act is that states didn't have to recognize interracial marriages either.
 
One of the defenses of the Defense of Marriage Act is that states didn't have to recognize interracial marriages either.
I wonder if these people ever stop and listen to what they're saying, and take a good long look at themselves in the mirror.
 
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=mark_strasser&sei-redir=1#search="interracial+marriages+nonrecognition"

Thanks for the link. From Page 12 of that document:
Traditionally, a non-polygamous, non-incestuous marriage will be treated as valid everywhere if valid in
light of the domicile’s law at the time of the marriage’s celebration. However, an exception has been grafted onto
this rule—if a couple marries in their domicile but plans on moving to another domicile immediately after the
marriage, then the marriage may be held invalid if violating the law of the post-wedding domicile.
They then continue to describe some cases where the marriage was upheld, and others when it was overturned because the couple had never seriously lived in the state where they obtained the marriage license. So, you do have a point; however, I still think it's closer to my position than yours because they were recognizing a substantial number of such marriages.
 
Oh, that was never a constitutional issue. One of the defenses of the Defense of Marriage Act is that states didn't have to recognize interracial marriages either.

Actually, it can be argued that it was; you could make the argument that these laws violated the 1st Amendment right to freedom of association.......and, after all, marriage IS a type of association, am I correct?

In any case, the fact is, these laws had no basis in anything other than hatred of non-whites, and related causes.
 
Charmingly, Saudi Arabia still has anti-miscegenation laws, albeit applied only to Arab women, today(and Israel and Egypt have borderline ones).

The easiest way to get an amendment is for the Court to interpret the 14th amendment as actually mandating the legality og interracial marriage(which probably requires the 14th amendment to be written in a slightly "stronger" fashion)
 
Last edited:
Charmingly, Saudi Arabia still has anti-miscegenation laws, albeit applied only to Arab women, today(and Israel and Egypt have borderline ones).

The easiest way to get an amendment is for the Court to interpret the 14th amendment as actually mandating(which probably requires the 14th amendment to be written in a slightly "stronger" fashion)

Just one more reason I don't like the government running Saudi Arabia............
 
Top