Anti-miscegenation laws guided the enforcement of racial segregation with its focus on intimate relationships and marriage, and it criminalized marriages between members of different races ( Kitch, 2016) . The two cases that are important in these laws are Pace v. Alabama and Loving v. Virginia.
Pace v. Alabama
Facts
Mary J. Cox, who was white, and Tony Pace, a defendant, were indicted in the Code of Alabama. This was through living together and committing adultery and fornication. They were tried in court, and they were convicted then sentenced where they were imprisoned in the State prison. Upon appealing, their convictions were held. Therefore, pointing out the error in the United States Supreme Court, Pace argued that the statute 4189 violated their fourteenth amendment because it went against the law's equal protection. He also noted that the Alabama Code 4184 was against the adulterous relationship between a woman and a man, and the punishment schemes were fine schemes and imprisonment. Therefore according to Pace, there was greater punishment for similar conduct, as seen in 4184, which violated the equal protection prescribed by the 14 th amendment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The prescription of increased punishment for similar conduct prescribed in the 4184 Ala code violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which warranted the reversal of Pace's conviction.
Rule
The fourteenth amendment was to reduce discrimination and the malicious use of state legislation against people and different individuals' classes. According to the equality of protection is was implied that there was not only access by each one, despite the race on similar terms with others on the country's courts with the security of his property and person, but that in administering justice, one shall not be subjected to different punishments for similar offenses. Through this view, congress focused on enacting the Civil Rights Act after it was amended. Through this act after the provision that everyone governed by the United States will be governed by similar laws in the territory or state, to enforce and make contracts, to sue, be a party, provide evidence, and ensure equal and full acceptance of all the proceedings and laws enjoyed by the citizens and the protection of property. Therefore everyone would be affected by similar exactions, licenses, taxes, penalties, pains, and punishments of every kind and no other custom, regulation, ordinance, a statute to the contrary notwithstanding.
Loving v. Virginia
Facts
A married couple was taken to court for violating the statute in Virginia that prevented interracial marriages. They were sentenced to jail for a year. They then challenged how constitutional the statute was, but the Supreme Court of Appeal in Virginia and the trial courts affirmed the case's constitutionality.
Issue
The issue in the case is whether the statute that prohibits marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
Marriage is a fundamental civil right accorded to man, and it is essential in survival and existence. Denying individuals this absolute freedom based on different unsupportable origin such as racial classifications embodied in the VA. Code is subversive to the equality principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, and it goes away with the liberty people have despite not following a consistent process of law. Even with the fourteenth amendment, people are free to choose whoever they want to marry, and racial discrimination should not restrict them. Therefore, in light of The United States' constitution, the choice to either match or not marry people of different races cannot be disturbed by the state.
Comparison of the Cases
The United States Supreme Court supported Anti-miscegenation laws and its constitutionality in 1883 in Pace v. Alabama. According to the Supreme Court, Alabama, the miscegenation statute did not go against the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided that the two races were treated equally because both whites and blacks were treated similarly for breaking the law against interracial sex and marriage. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the ruling was overturned, and the Supreme Court led by Earl Warren highlighted that the Anti-Miscegenation laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and they were, therefore, unconstitutional. The decisions made in the two cases were different where one decided that the statute was not in violation of the fourteenth amendment, while the latter made a decision that the statute was unconstitutional and it needed to be removed.
Influence of the Statute on Brown v. Board of Education
The Brown v. Board of education was an essential case where children's racial separation in public schools was ruled out, and it was made unconstitutional. This was a civil rights movement case that was essential, and this assisted in establishing precedent. There was no equality in separate but equal education. The Anti-Miscegenation statute could have supported the separate but equal notion, which was detrimental to the case, and this would continually discriminate against the black society. Furthermore, the fight against segregation had to be fought on all fronts to ensure equality and pave way for support from the non-black individuals where marrying and getting mixed race kids would have improved the conditions and make other races better.
The fourteenth amendment of the US constitution was ratified in 1868, and this ensured that everyone was born and naturalized and ensured that all the citizens were given equal protection laws. The Anti-Miscegenation statute was against the rules that assured equal protection, and it prevented people from making decisions on the people they wanted to marry.
Significance of this Statute to the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA)
The Defense of Marriage Act was a law in force from 1996 to 2013 that was specific to deny same-sex couples and deprived them of all the recognition and benefits provided to the couples of the opposite case (Karpinski & Collins, 2020) . These benefits were multiple, and they included more than 1,000 privileges and protection of the government. He included the recognition of the marriage by the government, access to the employee partner benefits, inheritance rights, joint returns in taxes, exemption in taxes, residency or immigration for the noncitizen partners, status in the next-of-kin, the right to live together in college and military houses and protecting from domestic violence (Karpinski & Collins, 2020) .
The Anti-Miscegenation statute was similarly discriminatory. While this limited the kind of races people were allowed to marry and have sex with, the DOMA act limited the kind of gender people could be intimate or marry (Karpinski & Collins, 2020) . Concerning this, it defined the fourteenth amendment rules, which presented an opportunity for those against the DOMA act to pursue. Similar to the Anti-Miscegenation act, DOMA would be against the equal protection of the fourteenth amendment, and this would have prevented people from making decisions on the kinds of people they wanted to marry. The decisions made by the court were significant to the DOMA, and this presented a basis for argument on the constitutionality of the DOMA.
According to the law, marriage is a basic civil right that man has, and this is essential for survival and existence. Therefore, consistency with the Supreme Court landmark case against the Anti-Miscegenation statute, it was seen that since marriage was a fundamental right, hence this statute was overturned. This was in relation to the law highlighting that it was not fair to guide people on who they could or could not marry.
References
Kitch, S. L. (2016). Anti‐Miscegenation Laws. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies , 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss617
Pace v. Alabama , 106 US 583, 1 S. Ct. 637, 27 L. Ed. 207, (1883).
Loving v. Virginia , 388 US 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967).
Brown v. Board of Education , 347 US 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, (1954).
Karpinski, S., & Collins, J. (2020). The LGBT Fight for Marriage Equality in the United States.
