Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An anti-miscegenation law was enacted by the Nazi government in September 1935 as a part of the Nuremberg Laws. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour ('Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre'), enacted on 15 September 1935, forbade sexual relations and marriages between Germans classified as so ...
All anti-miscegenation laws banned marriage between whites and non-white groups, primarily black people, but often also Native Americans and Asian Americans. [5] In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites.
The laws of Arizona, California, Mississippi, Texas, and Utah referred to "Mongolians". Asians in California were barred by anti-miscegenation laws from marrying White Americans (a group including Hispanic Americans). Nevada and Oregon referred to "Chinese," while Montana listed both "Chinese" and "Japanese" persons. [40]
McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a cohabitation law of Florida, part of the state's anti-miscegenation laws, was unconstitutional. [1] The law prohibited habitual cohabitation by two unmarried people of opposite sex, if one was black and the other was white.
banned anti-miscegenation laws: Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education: 1969 396 U.S. 1218 changed Brown's requirement of desegregation "with all deliberate speed" to one of "desegregation now" Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education: 1971 402 U.S. 1 establish bussing as a solution Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson: 1971 404 U.S 1215 ...
The Court overturned their convictions, dismissing Virginia's argument that the law was not discriminatory because it applied equally to and provided identical penalties for both white and black persons. The Supreme Court ruled that the anti-miscegenation statute violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth ...
Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1933 court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1] However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize such marriages. [2]
The decision was understood, from that time to the 1960s, as reflecting a validation of state anti-miscegenation laws. However, the Supreme Court had not confronted the question of whether, given that Pace and Cox could not become husband and wife, they would inevitably be liable to prosecution for "adultery or fornication" if they lived as such.