If Interracial Marriage Were Put up to a Vote...

[mondo joe]

Loving v Virginia overturned state laws against interracial marriage, at a time when the decision was overwhelmingly unpopular.

Presumably times have changed.

If Loving v Virginia were itself overturned and *each state* had to vote on whether or not to legally recognize interracial marriage, what do you think the outcome would be?

[Hanse]

1. Thirty to forty percent of Americans are against interracial marriage.

Gallup poll has been regularly conducting polls for decades.

There is greater resistance to interracial marriages in the Deep South, as the stereotype suggests. Bit it doesn't reach 50% in any, AFAIK. So efforts would likely fail everywhere. Older generations are likewise disproportionately to be against interracial marriage.

So when it comes to civil rights regarding marriage, time is on the side of progressives.

[deadmessengers]

2. I once had a co-worker tell me...

...that he didn't believe in creating "half-breeds". To his credit, this was said to my face and with the full knowledge that my daughter is bi-racial. Can't accuse him of being two-faced, that's for sure.

[mondo joe]

3. Where do these dumb fucks come from?

I just can't believe the scientifically ignorant things they spew.

[Tesha]

4. They "come from" religion and the xenophobia, tribalism, and insularity...

That religion promotes for its own survival.

Tesha

[awoke_in_2003]

32. While I agree with you...

i hope you know you are about to get flamed. Xians don't like their religion being blamed for anything.

[Tesha]

33. That's okay -- I'm used to it.

That they feel the need to flame us convinces me that we're on the
right track.

Tesha

[Gwendolyn]

35. It isn't only Christians. Religious folk of all faiths tend to veer that way.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. True...

but of the religions, they are the dominant one here.

[deadmessengers]

6. Atlanta, apparently n/t

[shanti]

17. i WISH somebody would

say that to me about my biracial son! :grr:

[shanti]

18. board glitch dupe

self-delete

[misanthrope]

40. Closer than you might want to believe...

...The state of Alabama repealed their ban on interracial marriage in 2000 by a vote of roughly 59% to 41%.

[Posteritatis]

5. All of them, but it would be too close a margin in several (nt)

[Fuzz]

7. Get signatures, put it on the ballot. Would be interesting.

This coming from someone in an 'inter-racial' marriage, if there is such a thing.

[galaxy21]

8. Honestly, I don't think most southern states would ban it

I think mixed race relationships are more common in the south than people think. I had a friend from Alabama who told me where she lived no one really blinked an eye at seeing black and white teenagers together/dating. And that's Alabama!


Southerns sometimes get worked up about gay marriage because of all the religious stuff. but from what I understand there's nothing in the bible that says there's anything wrong with mixed race couples.

[kwassa]

9. 77% of Americans approve of interracial marriages as of 2007, per Gallup

So, the trend is rapidly moving towards approval.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx

Overall Results

According to the poll, 77% of Americans say they approve of marriages between blacks and whites, while 17% say they disapprove. Public support for black-white marriages is now at the high end of the range of approval seen on this question since Gallup first asked it almost 50 years ago. The latest result essentially ties with the 76% approval rating found in 2004.

Gallup's long-term trend on this question documents a sea change in public attitudes about interracial marriage. In 1958, only 4% of Americans said they approved of marriages between whites and blacks. (The precise wording of the Gallup question has changed across the decades as the commonly accepted descriptive terms for blacks have changed; when Gallup first asked the question in 1958, the poll wording was, "whites and non-whites.") Approval gradually increased over the next few decades, but at least half of Americans disapproved of black-white unions through 1983. Then, in the next measure eight years later, disapproval had fallen to 42%, with 48% approving. In 1997, the next time Gallup asked the question, approval had jumped well into the majority, with nearly two in three Americans saying they approved of marriages between blacks and whites. Disapproval fell to 27% in that same year. Support remained at about the two-thirds level until 2002, but increased to 73% in 2003. Since then, there have only been modest variations in attitudes about interracial marriages.

[galaxy21]

10. Does disapprove mean they think it should be illegal, though?

I think if they'd asked 'would you make it illegal?' most of that 17% wouldn't have said yes. I think the number of people that would actually vote to ban interracial marriage is very low.

[kwassa]

19. I don't know, you are probably correct.

That wasn't measured in this poll.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. And that's the "problem" with allowing same sex marriages.

People might get used to the idea, same as we did with interracial marriage.

[galaxy21]

12. I think gay marriage is different to interracial marriage in some people's minds

It might be the religious issue, I don't know.

I think we have to be honest and say people in the deep red states are probably never going to accept gay marriage. Which is unfortunate. But I agree that people in blue and purple states just need time to come around to the idea.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. Historically, some of the opposition to interracial marriage was framed as faith-based too.

Ultimately I think for most it's a matter of neophobia.

[kwassa]

16. I had to look "neophobia" up

but I agree. I think most people have never really thought through the issues involved, and are reacting against it as being new and strange and therefore scary. More a reflexive response than considered. This can be changed with education, I think.

[donco6]

30. Interesting how "some people's" minds work, no? n/t

[hfojvt]

14. Loving v. Virginia was decided by 9-0 in 1967

At that time, Virginia was one of only 16 states that had such a law. In the 15 previous years, fourteen states had repealed laws outlawing interracial marriage. (Oxford Companion to SCOTUS)

Thus, your OP premise is false. Loving v. Virginia only overturned the laws of 16 states, not all 50, and it was not overwhelmingly unpopular, except perhaps in Virginia and the 15 other states. The trend was towards overturning it.

[mondo joe]

15. You're wrong. I never said Loving overturned the laws of 50 states. And it was overwhelmingly

unpopular as polled at the time.

[hfojvt]

25. you implied it with your last poll response

and you have read polls from 1967? I cannot believe it was that unpopular, considering the 14 states that overturned those laws legislatively and the other 20 states that didn't have such laws to overturn.

[mondo joe]

26. No, you inferred it.

Don't blame me for your inference.

At the time of Loving, only 30% of the country supported interracial marriage, laws aside.

[hfojvt]

27. I wasn't trying to blame anybody

only supply information that was lacking. Sorry if blame seemed to come with it.

Also, Loving is not about interracial marriage, it is about laws banning interracial marriage. That is, I can be against smoking pot, but not in favor of laws prohibiting the smoking of pot.

And do you have a link for that stat? Or a written source?

[mondo joe]

29. Gallup is the writen source.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/Most-Americans-Approve-Interracial-Marriages.aspx

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Your poll is flawed

If Loving v. Virginia were overturned, interracial marriage would still be allowed. The question should be about states recriminalizing interracial marriage. And I bet there would be quite a few that would.

[mondo joe]

21. You are, of course, technicaly correct. I was using a hypothetical that doesn't follow

real legal process, to get to the question I wanted to ask. ;-)

[JerseygirlCT]

22. It would not be unanimous, and it would not be constitutional

to even vote.

That's the problem with Prop 8, and the problem anytime a majority wishes to vote on civil rights. That's not the way it works.

[Ysabela]

23. kick. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

24. There is not a state legislature sitting that would even bring re-criminalization up for a vote -

it simply wouldn't happen.

If it was a state question or proposition, OTOH, I'm not so sure. Seeing what happened in California with Prop. 8 - one of the most liberal states in the Union and the hate side still triumphed - has made me much more skeptical about such things.

[hfojvt]

28. it's been settled law now for 41 years

If the vote had happened in 1968 though, it might have passed in Virginia handily, but it would not be "re-criminalization" in many states. Although it may be that states did not have laws preventing something they thought nobody would want to do anyway.

[IndianaJones]

31. i'm tolerant of interracial marriage. nt.

[rucky]

34. This is a much more valid comparison than the bogus polygamy arguement.

[qwlauren35]

43. Yes and no.

The reason why the legal issue of same sex marriage isn't comparable to miscegenation laws is because there is no history to the issue of same sex marriage as there is to miscegenation. Three hundred years ago, people married interracially - it was not banned. For property reasons... and "purity" reasons, it was banned over time. Not to mention, in California where there was a large Asian population, some of the laws were a result of hostility toward the Japanese during WWII, and previously toward Chinese.

One of the early punishments for interracial marriage was to enslave the white woman who did it, and the children. (I think white men could always pretend that the wife was his slave...) A painful deterrent. And makes clearer what the law was really aimed at, i.e. maintaining the cultural standard of superiority of the white race, and specifically white males, i.e. the only men allowed to marry white women.

The 14th Amendment was the starting point to the end of miscegenation laws, and it's foundation, because it argued that all races are equal under the law. Without the 14th Amendment, none of the Civil Rights cases could have been won. The Brown v. Board of Education case preceded Loving v. Virginia, establishing the precedent that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional. It was on the foundation of these and other cases that Miscegenation laws were overturned.

By comparison, there is no legal foundation on the issue of same sex marriage, because it has never previously existed, and so there has never been a reason to ban it.

My personal opinion is that the first step would need to be a Constitutional Amendment which makes the citizenship of all sexual orientations equal under the Law. Suffice to say, right now - it's not. Housing and work discrimination is rampant, and can't be fought without such a change in the Constitution.

If you look at it, the cycle is now going back to the beginning. For openly gay Americans, the miscegenation laws are now appearing. If history repeats itself, it will take 200 years to repeal them, and it will require a Constitutional Amendment for equal citizenship.

The current approach of suggesting that gay rights can be based on African-American rights does not hold. The comparison of race and sex never does. For example, black suffrage and women's suffrage did NOT coincide. They were very separate issues, neither built on the other.

Orientation is its own issue. And needs to be treated as such.

[Edweird]

37. My wife is Mayan, I'm German/Irish. I don't get any grief over it tho...

partly because I live in South Florida where most people don't give a crap, and I'm also 6' 200+ muscular pounds of pissed off lineman. It HAS happened where people have harassed my wife (she's a little thing 5' and 100 lbs) outside my immediate presence. I, however, will thoughtfully take the time to put the fear of 'Edweird' in them.....:evilgrin:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

38. Interracial marriage is IMPOSSIBLE! It requires more than one race.

There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race!
There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race!
There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race!
There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race! There is only ONE race!
Got it?
------------------------------------
“Genetics, I think, resoundingly has answered the question of where we ultimately came from, we came out of Africa. And we came out quite recently, within the last 50 or 60 thousand years,”
--Spencer Wells

[mondo joe]

39. While this is 100% biologically true, it is not 100% true culturally.

Or legally.

[qwlauren35]

41. Keep in Mind, Loving v. Virginia would be VERY hard to overturn.

Loving v. Virginia is predicated on Brown v. Board of Education, which is predicated on the Fourteenth Amendment, granting full citizenship to those of all races, colors and creeds.

It's a very thoroughly founded ruling.

IF Loving v. Virginia were overturned, every state would then have a referendum on the issue. How many would reinstate the laws? It's a VERY painful question.

Currently, I honestly believe that there are MANY African-Americans who would SUPPORT miscegenation laws. Many self-segregationalists within the African-American community do not believe in interracial marriage. On the other hand, I think there would be a lot of middle-aged grandparents of biracial kids who would fight like crazy to keep the law off the books.

In the end, I think there would be about 5-10 states that would reinstate miscegenation laws. Alabama, Mississippi, possibly Oklahoma, possibly South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky. Georgia and North Carolina are trying too hard to come into the 21st century. But I'm not so sure about Indiana. I can see Utah reinstating the laws. I wonder about Idaho/Montana/South Dakota.

Personally, any state that Obama won would probably not reinstate the laws.

I think the most embarrassing question is whether Obama would then be considered a bastard. And whether numerous children would lose their inheritances. I doubt that any of the couples would physically break up.

I guess any Supreme Court decision CAN be reversed, as evidenced by the increasing fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, when you have several such cases, as there were during the Civil Rights Era, I can't see them being overturned.

I think the awkward thing about Roe v. Wade is that it has turned into a moral question IN PART because some women used abortion as their only birth control, and also because it changed the pattern of white adoptions. While I don't want to see the law overturned, I think women need to become very, very discrete about getting abortions, abortion clinics need to be integrated into more all-encompassing women's health facilities. And pharmacists who refuse to be discrete need to be identified!

There will come a day when Roe v. Wade will become more difficult to hold onto. Because, like too many other "rights", it's taken for granted... and abused. Issues on the moral cusp are always at risk when the right can persuade the middle that something needs "more regulation".

[mondo joe]

42. Absolutely. The point was not that I thought it was likely in the least to be

overturned.