Research, review, and analyze Anti-Miscegenation Statutes in the United States and chose two (2) relevant cases. Then, write a 4-5 page paper in which you:

Analyze and evaluate each case independently by providing the following (about two paragraphs per case):

Facts of the case

Issues

Rule

Compare and contrast both cases in regards to the Anti-Miscegenation Statutes.

Analyze how this statute could have influenced Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Explain the significance of this statute to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOM).

Your assignment must:

Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required page length.

1910 Anti-Miscegenation Statutes:
Before the civil war majority of the sates in the USA prohibited marriages between races. This was termed as “”intermarriage or forms of illicit intercourse between the races.” During the Reconstruction that happened in the southern states, none of the statutes against miscegenation appear to have been repealed.” In 1910 as many as 28 states statutes in effect and six of them still prohibited racial intermarriage by means of a provision in the constitution. Marriage between whites and blacks were prohibited in any form.
Cases:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Facts : Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were sentenced to one year imprisonment in Virginia for marrying each other .
Issues:. Their marriage violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as “white” and people classified as “colored.”
Rule : The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision held this prohibition was unconstitutional, overturning The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of two movies as well as songs. In the 2010s, it again became relevant in the context of the debate about same-sex marriage in the United States.

Case 2
Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama’s anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional.
Facts: The plaintiff, Tony Pace, an African-American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, were residents of the state of Alabama, who had been arrested in 1881 because their sexual relationship violated the state’s anti-miscegenation statute. They were charged with living together “in a state of adultery or fornication” and both sentenced to two years imprisonment in the state penitentiary in 1882.
Rule: “miscegenation,” were prohibited by Alabama’s anti-miscegenation statute (Ala. code 4189). It means that marriage, cohabitation and sexual relations between whites and “negroes,” was prohibited by, it would have been illegal for the couple to marry in Alabama. Because of the criminalization of interracial relationships, they were penalized more severely for their extramarital relationship than a white or a black couple would have been.
Comparison of both the cases:
In Loving v. Virginia there was an invalidation of the anti Miscegenation Statutes while in Pace Vs. Alabama the miscegenation was considered to be valid one .
In the Brown v. Board of Education, it was held that the Negro children of elementary school residing in Topeka. Need to have segregated schools for Negros and whites . Kan.Gen.Stat. § 72-1724 (1949). That this segregation had a detrimental effect on students in the domain of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA enacted on September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Hence marriages of opposite sexes have to be relaxed and accepted. This brought into effect the need of the Anti-Miscegenation Statutes.