Is there a justification for anti-intermarriage laws ?

Post Reply New Topic

The opening of a movie , " LOVING " , about the " Loving v. Virginia " case that led to the SCOTUS striking down all anti-racial intermarriage laws in America , has sparked this for me .
Do you think that the right for localities to pass local anti-racial intermarriage (ari) laws should not have been thrown out ? Do you think that passing arm laws should have been a matter of local option ? " States' rights " , and that the SCOTUS should have let such laws stand back in 1967 ?
Aside from stated white supremacists (or other racial supremacists) , there might seem to be few who would defend such laws to-day ~ But I recall a person on a board I used to frequent who once asked " What was so wrong with ari laws ? All you had to do was go to another town . " .
Do you feel it was Federal judicial tyranny for the states - and smaller localities (I believe) to not be allowed to express the local population's dislike of racially mixed marriages ? Was Big Government stepping in on The People ?
I saw someone here defending the former practice of allowing whites-only (and other) stores , saying " Someone would have to be a fool to neglect a market , if your race wasn't wanted in one store you could go somewhere else " .
So ~ What say you ???????

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

...This was meant to be an edit of my OP , but somehow became a reposting that INVOLVED ! the full , original , post as part of it as a repost .
I sowwy .

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

...The person on the SF site that said this defending local ari laws never said anything that I read indicating he was what we would call a " racist " nowadays .
Of course , that is a generally pretty unpopular position to express in " nice " areas , so ! ! ! !! !! !! !!
I have carefully avoided saying this up till now ~ But m of course m interacial marraige between black and white people was what most ari laws were directed towards ! (However , for instance , out here in California there were ari laws aimed more at stopping Asian-White intermarriage , I recall reading of a mid-20th Century case which IIRC involved a left-wing labor leader called Harry Bridges which led to their going .)

_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

I feel it's ridiculous to have laws which ban "intermarriage."

People are people, whatever their race.

I feel, in order to be a viable country, that we must not have these sorts of laws in our books.

Virginia allows the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores. Maryland does not allow it, but does allow liquor to be sold in liguor stores.

Thats fine. Leaving that issue up to the local juristictions doesnt hurt society.

Not allowing the sale of any liquor in any kind of store is fine if your state votes for it.

But some things cant be left to the local juristiction.

Slavery (to take an extreme example) for one. If its legal for me to own you as a piece of property in Alabama, but its illegal to own people in Ohio, and you are my slave butler on my plantation in Alabama, and I take you on a business trip to Ohio- what happens? Once we leave the train station in Akron can you just walk away from me a free man? Thats what the Dred Scott mess that went all the way to the Supreme Court was all about. Leaving the legality of slavery up to the states just creates too many contradictions for the nation.

Not gonna get into the same sex marriage debate, but that was something that had to be decided on a national level:either we all decide to ban it, or we all decide to allow it. One or the other for the whole nation. The reason is that it doesnt work to have a couple be recognized as a legally married in one place, and not in another. Folks move around, and marriage law figures in estate probate, taxes, inheritence, and a zillion other things.

The same with interracial marriage laws. No..you cannot allow each local juristiction to decide. It has to be uniform. And since outlawing interracial marriage is clearly wrong - those laws had to be struck down, AND they had to be struck down nation wide.

I certainly think that laws controlling who can get married (except for ones protecting children) are stupid and unjustifiable, and I am very glad they have been struck down.

My (worthless, largely uninformed) interpretation of the constitution is that it doesn't provide a right to marry whoever you want. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, and their opinions are both (usually) better informed and much more important than mine.

If somebody wanted to marry a Donkey or a German Shepherd, I would have no problems with it. --Not my life, not my issue.

I wouldn't single out Mormons or polygamy, but forced marriage is the obvious omission.

While Loving is considered the turning point when the federal Supreme Court began to involve itself in the state issue of marriage, it has done so since 1888 only to protect the federally recognized natural rights of U.S. citizens. So, while I support states' rights under the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, I also recognize that the federal union needs to "harmonize" state laws by restricting their more egregious provisions.

In other words, when it comes to recognized rights, the federal government may override state laws; but, it should tread lightly so as to avoid violations of its own. Both have their important roles.