1948: Perez v. Sharp
Andrea Perez, a white Mexican American woman, and Sylvester David, a black African American man, met while working int he defense industry in Los Angeles. The two were denied marriage license from the County Clerk of Los Angeles based on California Civil Code Section 60, which provided that “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void,” and also on Section 69, which stated that ". . . no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race."
Perez petitioned the California Supreme Court as he and David were both Catholics and the Church was willing to marry them, and thus, the state's anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacraments of their religion, including the sacrament of matrimony. The Supreme Court of California recognizes that interracial bans on marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. This was the first of any state to strike down an anti-miscegenation law.
Plaintiff: Tony Pace, an African American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman.
Pace and Cox were residents of the state of Alabama who were arrested in 1881 because of their interracial sexual relationship which violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute. They were charged with "adultery or fornication," not with marriage or attempted marriage. Both claimed the statue violated the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the statue did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because it did not constitute discrimination for or against either race to prohibit interracial sexual relations. The Court focused on the crime of "adultery or fornication" and the interracial offspring in which interracial sexual relations could occur.
"The evil tendency of the crime [of adultery or fornication] is greater when committed between persons of the two races ... Its result may be the amalgamation of the two races, producing a mongrel population and a degraded civilization, the prevention of which is dictated by a sound policy affecting the highest interests of society and government." Pace & Cox v. State, 69 Ala 231, 233 (1882)
1883: Pace v. Alabama
U.S. Supreme Court Cases
1964: McLaughlin v. Florida
Warren Court issues a ruling in the case of an interracial couple from Flroida who had been convicted bevause they had cohabited. Supreme Court rules that the Florida state law that prohibits cohabitation between whites and non whites is unconstitutional based on the 14th ammendment. However, the court does not rule on Florida's ban on marriage between white sand non-whites.
1967: Loving v. Virginia
In June of 1958, Richard Loving, a white man, married Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, in Washington D.C., having left their homestate of Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act. Upon their return to Virginia, the Lovings were found sleeping in their bed by a group of polices officers who had invaded their home and were thereby charged with violation of the Act.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which identified miscegenation as a felony. The trial justice in the case, Leon M. Bazile, recited Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's interpretation of race:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
In 1963, the United Presbyterian Church and Unitarian Universalist Association took a stand in support of repealing laws which inhibit marriage or cohabitation between people because of different races, religions, or national origins.
I n 1967, months after the public support of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lovings were successful in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the convictions in a unanimous decision. The Court rules that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Loving v. Virginia was a historical civil rights case which declared the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" unconstitutional, ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
1921: Kirby v. Kirby
Mr. Kirby asks the state of Arizona to annul his marriage on the grounds that it is invalid because his wife is of "negro" descent. The Arizona Supreme Court determines Mrs. Kirby's race by observing her physical characteristics and determines that she is of mixed race, thereby granting the annulment.