In 1968, 72% Of Americans Disapproved Of Interracial Marriage

Only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage.

That's right.

20%.

And this was a year after the Supreme Court had ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional.

It was not until 1991 that majorities in this country favored interracial marriage.

So do not be fooled by Republican arguments that "vast" majorities of the American electorate oppose gay marriage.

Gay marriage is already far more accepted today than interracial marriage was in the in 1960's.

And do not be fooled by the Republican argument about "activist judges."

After all, it was "activist judges" that reached the landmark decision, Loving V Virginia, which threw out interracial bans nationwide.

Those historic words still echo today. The object of discrimination may have changed, but the rationale behind rejecting the bigotry has not.

From Chief Justice Warren, writing for the majority:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

But why do I get the feeling we've turned around and are going in reverse?

one step forward, two steps back...

Two steps forward, one step back... if we start seeing major precedents overturned, then I'll agree that we're actually moving backwards. Right now, it seems like progress is, well, progressing, just slower due to resistance.

I'm just having a lousy week...

:pals:

Don't let life get you down too much.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the opposition to same-sex marriage has been slowly, but steadily dropping.

"Activist Judges" is such bullshit. As you've pointed out very cogently, "activist judges" threw out the interracial bans in the United States.

Good post. Thank you.

that not one reporter has said to him:

"Mr. President, in 1967, more than seven out of ten Americans opposed interracial marriage. They thought it was wrong. But the Supreme Court defied public opinion and legalize interracial marriage. Were they activist judges? And were they wrong in doing what they did?"

Or maybe he will reply as he did on Brown vs Board of Education that he had never reviewed that one...

Liars all.

The majority opinion doesn't matter if people's rights are being trampled upon.

...marriage? WTF is that shit?

This is depressing.

rests my argument against doing or not doing something simply because polls read a certain way.

Recommending.

my father was one of those 72% BUT his reasons were not racial. He was afraid for my sister because it was a very hard thing to live this kind of life against the stream of thought. Today my sister and my two daughters would tell you about the very real problems within interracial marriages. Different cultures that cause friction, different ideals, even different marital values not to mention different child rearing ideas. Of the 3 marriages 2 ended in divorce and the other took many years of patience to learn to live with each other's world. My father knew what he was talking about in 1972. Hopefully things have changed since then because not matter the heartache that they went through we love our biracial children. We would not do it differently.

wouldn't many of the differences you named be present in any marriage? (child rearing ideas, marital values, different ideals?)

Sure it is hard to live in a way that most people hate. Doesn't mean gay people should stay closeted or interracial couples should hide. Those pioneers make it more acceptable for us today.

Yes, those issues are often present but not to the extent that they are between cultures. I think the statistics will bear out if one looks at the number of interracial marriages that ended in divorce back then. Yes all of their marriages served to make it better for those today.

I guess a lot depended on where you lived at the time. I married my late, African American husband in 1964. We lived in the Berkshires in MA. for twenty years, and raised our beautiful daughter there. We are in Ct. now. We experienced only "unspoken" disapproval in some instances, nothing blatant. I guess we just assimilated into the community, and had no "culture clashes" amongst the blended families. I had 5 children from a previous marriage to a white man, and my husband had 2 from a previous marriage, and was a widower when we met. All of our children got on very well. We had a "yours, mine and ours" type of family. It turned out quite well for all. My husbands son married a white woman. Our youngest daughter just married a white man and are expecting their first child. We live in a small town where everyone knows each other, and are warmly accepted. It was hard for my guy and I in the 60's when we first married, but I think the "flower power" era helped, more than hindered. We were pretty tight with Arlo Guthrie and the cast from "Alice's Restaurant" as they stayed at the Holiday Inn where my husband and I worked (he was the Chef.) While there we also met Harry Belafonte and Sidney Portier, as they stayed at the Inn when visiting their children at Private School (Windsor Mountain) in Stockbridge MA. Oh, what a trip down memory lane, I would gladly relive the "stigma" and pain all over again, just to have my dear sweet husband of 42 years back again, and able to see our baby girl's son when he is born! I guess it's like they used to say back then.........different strokes for different folks!! Love DC

targeted by KKK and shunned by many not to mention the name calling. They finally moved out east where you are and things were better there but by that time they were afraid to socialize and face the threats. I certainly hope that kind of idiocy is over but I do know that gays are facing even worse today.

based on the stats. However most of those stats seem based on black/white vice others. An exception is Honolulu where IIRC most marriages have been notionally interracial for some time.

My boss was from Taiwan but moved here when she started college. At home her family had many black friends so she was surprised when her parents were concerned when she became engaged to a black man. They had heard stories about prejudice in America and they were very worried what she might experience.

She assured them that where she lived there were no problems like that. They came to the US for a visit and a chance to met and spend time with them.

On the visit they decided to go north and visit Mackinaw Island. As soon as they crossed the bridge to the upper peninsula they were pulled over. Her fiance was pulled out of the car at gun point, knocked to the ground and cuffed, a gun held to his head. They were told he matched the description of a armed robbery suspect. My boss was mad. She asked if they were told to be on the look out for a black man traveling with an Oriental woman and an elderly Chinese couple.
He was held in the jail for 8 hours before being released with no apologies. Not exactly what she wanted her parents to see, their worst fear.

They've been married almost 20 years now, have two daughters. They had her parents blessing...as long as they promised not to travel north. In this university town there have been no issues.

I raised my step-daughters. The youngest was a pretty little blond. From the time she was 6 or 7 she would say she was going to have a black husband because she knew some mixed race kids and she thought they were the prettiest color of all people. I'd just smile or say "If that's who you love". Once she said it in front of a lot of older relatives. They were horrified that I didn't correct her, that I let her think that way. These religious people said God didn't intend the races to mix, that that was a wrong thought to let her have and speak of. I was amazed at how serious they were about it.

Then my own mom...my best friend was/is a black man. We loved each other but it wasn't romantic. Still it worried my mom and I got the same talk from her, that races weren't meant to mix and we spent so much time together and liked each other so well it might "lead to something".
She'd always refer to him as "that black man". I'd act naive. When she asked how "that black man" was or something I'd pick some famous one and answer. "Well I saw Michael Jordan play and he was the high scorer and really moving well and smiling a lot, so I think he is doing pretty well".

So I don't think the law changed people's bias. I'm sure many have grown use to it, but people can be pretty stupid.

Honestly...if I had a black son I would be worried though. Law enforcement do watch and treat them differently. They can get in the same troubles most teens do...but they get caught and arrested. That's not a mixed race marriage issue...that is a societal issue we have to find a way to deal with. The % of young black men in jail is a national disgrace.

"We can't support interracial marriage!!! We have to be CENTRIST!"

Under a different name.

They called themselves "Republicans"

is the DLC is obsessed with power power power and not what we do with power.

they are all about what positions will maximize our chances of winning, not how can we win on our positions.

This is how we get Kerry and "I served in Vietnam, vote for me."

in 1968 by 70%....and keep in mind that I was born a decade before.

People who disapproved of these marriages would say..."but what about the children? It's not fair to them."

The problem the children have had in the past has been those folks exactly....

Far as I'm concerned, I've always done just fine!

My former hair dresser always said "But what about the children?" whenever I asked her some question like "How, exactly, is the institution of marriage threatened by gay marriage?" She was great at hair, but I couldn't take her politics. Now my hair doesn't look as good, but my blood pressure's lower. :)

8 of which were after 1991. I don't see your point.

only after telling her I was dating a black woman since she was so opposed to interracial dating. Sadly the predjudice against interracial marriage is among the last to end.

when I hear about anti-gay discrimination I am often reminded that this must be how it was for other people, NOT THAT LONG AGO....I did not care about the interracial couple in my neighborhood everyone was up in arms about 40 years ago and I don't care if my gay neighbors want to be married NOW.

are "on the wrong side of history" on gay marriage.

And on many other things as well.

There's a breath-taking adage by I think Bruce Lee (?) -- not sure of the source -- that goes:

"When the finger points to the stars, the fool looks at the finger."

In a way, the fundies' opposition to gay marriage is their impulse to stare at the finger instead of the vast intricacies it points to in the night sky.

In opposing the right of people to marry if they so wish, fundie nutcases are ensuring that the caption beneath their social position in history will be something like "ignorant, fearful, short-fused hatemongers."

Jesus of Galilee would absolutely puke if he could be here to witness the bullshit being conveyed in his name.

There will be a Palestinian State. And there will be same-sex marriage. In our lifetimes. And I'm older than most on these boards. It's going to happen. Whether Jim Dobson likes it or not.

In 1994 the apartheid regime disappeared, after being in power since 1948. Neo nazis, ultra conservatives and Christians (a very special interpretation of Christianity, mind) held power through a very intelligent and modern form of racism, not at all like the fascist Germany during WWII (which was an expansive, apocalyptic regime). It went under the flag of democracy, and manipulated the black majority in a way that made it defendable at home (but of course not abroad).
During the 1970's they branched out because SA was becoming increasingly isolated, and through the manipulation of foreign media and campaigning towards (neo) Conservative politicians like Goldwater, Reagan and Thatcher, managed to stay in power during the 80's.

I'm doing an investigation into the past, and found some pictures in a book by Eschel Rhoodie that I scanned:







If you want to read the amazing story, buy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0620070579/002-9925455-4947244?v=glance&n=283155
Be prepared to wait some time for it to arrive, though ;-)

Gay people also had a hard time in SA during those years, as one can imagine:
http://www.q.co.za/news/2000/07/000728-sexchange1.htm

The ANC embraced gay rights, after some debate:
http://www.petertatchell.net/history/anc.htm

It was a cold system based on mind control and race division, best described by their laws:

Amendment to The Immorality Act (1950)
This law made it a criminal offence for a white person to have any sexual relations with a person of a different race.
The Population Registration Act (1950)
This law required all citizens to register as black, white or coloured.
The Suppression of Communism Act (1950)
This law banned any party the government chose to label as 'communist'.
The Group Areas Act (27 April 1950)
This law partitioned the country into different areas, with different areas being allocated to different racial groups. This law represented the very heart of apartheid because it was the basis upon which political and social separation was to be constructed.
Bantu Authorities Act (1951)
This law created separate government structures for black people.
Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act (1951)
This law allowed the government to demolish black shackland slums.
Native Building Workers Act and Native Services Levy (1951)
This law forced white employers to pay for the construction of proper housing for black workers recognized as legal residents in 'white' cities.
The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953)
This law prohibited people of different races from using the same public amenities, such as drinking fountains, restrooms, and so on.
The Bantu Education Act (1953)
This law brought all black schooling under government control, effectively ending mission-run schools.
Bantu Urban Areas Act (1954)
This law curtailed black migration to the cities.
The Mines and Work Act (1956)
This law formalised racial discrimination in employment.
The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act (1958)
This law set up separate territorial governments in the 'homelands', designated lands for black people where they could have a vote. The aim was that these homelands would eventually become independent of South Africa. In practice, the South African government exercised a strong influence over these separate states even after some of them became 'independent'.
Bantu Investment Corporation Act (1959)
This law set up a mechanism to transfer capital to the homelands in order to create jobs there.
The Extension of University Education Act (1959)
This law created separate universities for blacks, coloureds and Indians.
Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act (1967)
This law allowed the government to stop industrial development in 'white' cites and re-direct such development to homeland border areas. The aim was to speed up the relocation of blacks to the homelands by relocating jobs to homeland areas.
Black Homeland Citizenship Act (1970)
This law changed the status of the inhabitants of the 'homelands' so that they were no longer citizens of South Africa. The aim was to ensure whites became the demographic majority within 'white' South Africa.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

i see this post in terms of its current political context ... i hear the word "purist" being tossed at progressives ... "when are you purists going to get out of your little fantasyland and understand that you have to put your little pet issues aside so we can win?"

i suppose it's true that back in 1968, a political consultant would have sagely counseled the Democratic Party to "go where the voters are" ... "Hubert, the people don't like this inter-racial marriage stuff."

after the last election we talked a lot about the need to convey the Party's "core values" to the American people ... we heard things like "Kerry was too wonky and intellectual; next time we have to convey our core values" ...

but, with elections around the corner, here we go again ... the great campaign, absent a clear definition of our core values, is at it again ...

win or lose, we have to stand for something ... if we play political games and refuse to stand up and fight for our beliefs, whatever the risks, we will be seen as weak, irrelevant and lacking a genuine commitment to what our campaign message is ... it's a prescription for defeat ...

taking bold stands on the issues, even if some of our Party's views may be unpopular, will win us huge "integrity points" ... yes, some may vote against you because you support gay marriage ... of course that will happen ... but i bet more will vote against you because that's what they perceive the Party's beliefs to be and they see a Party who "won't stand up for their beliefs" ... the sin of "omission" can be worse than the sin of "commission" ...

finally, i will acknowledge that we cannot completely ignore the will of the voters and certain pragmatic considerations ... but this speaks to tactics and timing; not to our stated objectives and values ...

in 1968, the Party should have unequivocally said that it fully supports the right to marry of any two consenting adults ... PERIOD ... today, the same statement reflecting the same core values should be made about gays and their right to marry ... if one wanted to make an argument for civil unions, solely to allow a period of "societal transition", perhaps that MIGHT be worth considering for political reasons ... but to not clearly articulate the ultimate objective of full, human equality under the law for ALL citizens is garbage ...

the objective MUST be clearly articulated NOW ... the argument that the majority should be able to determine whether other citizens are equal under the law is nonsense ... a majority does NOT have the right to vote against the Constitutional rights of any citizen ... any Party that endorses the power of the majority to oppress any minority, perhaps solely to seek votes, deserves to be defeated ...

it's time for Democrats to stand up and tell Americans that we believe in full equality for all citizens whether it's politically popular of not ... too many in our Party are afraid to do that ...

and gay adultery, and gay spousal abuse, prenuptual agreements, coveting thy neighbor's gay life partner, and all kinds of BS that make it surprisingly similar to traditional marriage. Why shouldn't gays suffer too? Comedian Carlos Mencia was right when he wished he could tell his wife "eh sorry, but it's not legal!".

Blacks fought for so long to get the chains off, and now gays are fighting for the right to get the chains on.

:silly:

eh, let them have it. I think civil unions/domestic partnerships are easier to pass and many states already have it. The word "marriage" generates a strong emotional response due to the association with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#The_Several_States

anyway. Just because almost everyone thinks something is "right" doesn't make it so.

that had in one panel 1964 with this guy who was against interracial marrage and he was saying "it'll destroy the sancity of marrage" and in the other panel, it said 2004 with an anti-gay marrage guy and it said the same thing. I wish I could find it and if any of y'all know what I'm talking about, could y'all post it for me.

Do you have a source for the 20% figure? I'd love to be able to quote it in an online argument elsewhere, but without a source I'll likely be shot down. Have tried Wikipedia, but couldn't find this particular bit of info. Thanks!

If you do a google search on "interracial marriage gallup 1968", you will see literally thousands of references to the polling data.

Here's the source from the horse's mouth (Gallup), but you need a subscription to see the details of the historical polling:

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=11836

Here are just a few, various sources citing the 1968 poll:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/9/172041/5103

a year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down faith-based laws against interracial marriage and ruled that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man" and the freedom to marry is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness" (Loving v. Virginia), a Gallup poll showed 72 percent of Americans opposed the legalization of interracial marriage.

http://www.atoday.com/211.0.html

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court found a statutory bar to interracial marriage violated the 14th Amendment when it ruled the law in Virginia unconstitutional: a decision that rendered all such laws moot (10).

Both these decisions were courageous, handed down in the face of strong contrary public opinion: in 1968, the year after the Loving decision, a Gallup Poll found that Americans, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, still disapproved marriages between whites and blacks (11).

http://www.acsblog.org/equal-protection-and-due-process-1032-judging-by-majority-consensus-would-have-prevented-loving.html

Judging By Majority Consensus Would Have Prevented Loving

when the Supreme Court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia vs. Loving , SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until 1991.


http://www.lasvegascitylife.com/articles/2006/06/02/opinion/all_tomorrows_parties/atp.txt

Gallup polling in 1968 showed only 20 percent of Americans approved of "marriage between blacks and whites." By 2004, 76 percent approved. When Gallup first asked the question in 1958, 4 percent approved

http://www.faithinamerica.info/newSite/sinkford.html

In 1968, a year after Loving v. Virginia, a Gallup poll whom god hath joined together found that more than 75 percent of people still disapproved of marriage across racial lines.

Thanks kindly!

It is absolutely amazing what views held majority not 40 years ago. It's disheartening to think what we were so recently, but equally encouraging to see things change all the time towards freedom.

(I'm in Poland, where we just had the first legal gay pride parade in Warsaw last Saturday (there had been several in the years before, all banned by city authorities but still held). Our local wingnuts, now in the government, have had to allow it after the courts had said the constitution does not allow prohibiting such events, but the wingnuts keep spewing the worst bile. Godless gays want to screw under our windows and rape our kids, that kind of thing. But we too are progressing :) For anyone who wants to experience a blast-from-the-past kind of feeling, see this recent piece from The Guardian.