Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

North Carolina – A History Of Marriage Bigotry


Last time North Carolina amended the state Constitution regarding marriage, it prohibited interracial marriage:















That state Constitutional amendment – and all laws in America prohibiting marriage based on race - was repealed by the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967.  The decision of Loving V. Virginia reads, in part, as follows:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.  [Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)].  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.  The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.  Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Will this issue of marriage – one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men – be taken up by the Supreme Court in our near future?  Perhaps.  

One can only hope that we live to see an American society free of bigotry, free of hate…. and just plain free.


Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Fake Drudge says:

    “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

    Kindly explain to me what two men doing in the privacy of their bedroom has to do with our existence and survival — much less be /fundamental/?

    I mean, it’s pretty obvious when one of them is a girl…

    Sorry pal, but separate isn’t equal. Not when it comes to boys and girls.

    • Brandy says:

      Even though this part of our states constitution was changed in 1977, I was born to unmarried parents in 1978, because it was still illegal in they county in which I was born for a negro man and a white woman to marry. My parents faught in court from 1977 to 1986 to be able to have a legal marriage and to allow me to take my father’s last name. In 1990, my father came to pick me up from school, and because my skin is more white, the police, and social services were called out to charge my mother and father with abuse. The courts finding of this case was that it was unlawful, and abusive for white skinned children to be raise in a home with a negro male as head of house hold. My sister that also was light like me, and I were put into the system, where we were sexually, mentally, and physically abused for years, while our sisters with darker skin were allowed to remain in the home. In 1994, our father pasted away, and we were not allowed to attend his service. Even after his death we were still kept away from our mother and sisters, because the courts earlier ruling had stated that we were to never have contact with them until adulthood. In 1996, after many years of fighting, the supreme court finally over turned the original ruling, and apologized to my mother, but my father had never got to hear that, and died without his children by his side. My sisters and I are forever damaaged by our childhood, and my mother died with a broken heart.

      NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANYONE WHO THEY CAN OR CAN’T LOVE! My sister and I were taken from a loving home and placed in the hands of abusers because someone thought they had that right. Black/White, Gay/Straight…NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HATE LOVE. If you don’t like gay people then don’t marry a gay person! If you don’t like someone who marries out side of their skin color line, then don’t marry them!

  2. jdogg says:

    This is supposed to be “conservative” daily news??

    • TJ Thompson says:

      Yes, this is Conservative Daily News…. not Republican Daily News.

      This is also categorized as an Opinion article.

  3. SCOTUS has already addressed gay marriage — in fact the same SCOTUS that ruled in Loving. In 1970, inspired by Loving, two gay activists in Minnesota filed for a marriage license, were denied, & subsequently sued.

    The case made it’s way up through the Supreme Court of Minnesota, to SCOTUS, where the court rejected the case, based largely on Loving, on the merits of the arguments(all the same arguments we hear today).

    I highly recommend people read the decision, as well as the vast majority of other decisions.

    No one’s civil rights are being violated.