4 ms·

Interracial marriage in US became legal only in 1967

32 points by seesawtron 6y ago

fortran77 6y ago
Yes -- in my lifetime. Amazing to think about. (I was born in '62). And here I am--in 2020 and I'm married to a same-sex partner. This was shocking when I was growing up. In the North where I was you'd see interracial couples but it was very, very rare. I remember seeing a movie when I was 10 or so called Future Shock (in 1972) that had a scene with a same-sex wedding and the audience gasped! (It was the second feature at the Uniondale Mini Cinema.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU
- uniqueid 6y ago
  Thanks for the Alvin Toffler link! I haven't watched "Future Shock" for decades :)
karatestomp 6y ago
I remember the family drama and strife (real or fake, who knows, but the topic was chosen for the audience regardless) around interracial marriages being a common feature of daytime talk shows at least as late as the mid- or maybe late-90s.
dang 6y ago
This is a bad post for HN. Wikipedia links are good when a topic hasn't had much or any discussion, and then only if there isn't a good alternative article available. But since race relations in the US are the most-discussed topic of the moment (perhaps in the world? and certainly here), this is the worst-possible use of Wikipedia on HN. For some reason, this issue about Wikipedia submissions has been coming up a lot lately: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20wikipedia%20HN&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Moreover, you editorialized the title to make it more inflammatory. That's exactly the opposite of what the site guidelines ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
- seesawtron 6y ago
  The char limit on titles in HN doesn't let you post the original title, how would you fix such a thing given this limitation?
  - Antoninus 6y ago
    Post the link to the anchor of the page and use the original title. P
  - dang 6y ago
    The original title looks like "Interracial marriage" to me, which is plenty short - so I'm not following your question.
- golf3 6y ago
  It's because this place is full of cuckolds.
bradyd 6y ago
This title is somewhat inaccurate as there were a number of states where it was legal before 1967. 1967 is when the Supreme Court decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, forcing all states to allow it.
- seesawtron 6y ago
  You see the glass half full, I see the glass half empty.
- hackeraccount 6y ago
  How about "mixed racial marriage ruled illegal in 1967"

32 points by seesawtron 6y ago

Yes -- in my lifetime. Amazing to think about. (I was born in '62). And here I am--in 2020 and I'm married to a same-sex partner. This was shocking when I was growing up. In the North where I was you'd see interracial couples but it was very, very rare. I remember seeing a movie when I was 10 or so called Future Shock (in 1972) that had a scene with a same-sex wedding and the audience gasped! (It was the second feature at the Uniondale Mini Cinema.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU

uniqueid 6y ago
Thanks for the Alvin Toffler link! I haven't watched "Future Shock" for decades :)

karatestomp 6y ago

I remember the family drama and strife (real or fake, who knows, but the topic was chosen for the audience regardless) around interracial marriages being a common feature of daytime talk shows at least as late as the mid- or maybe late-90s.

dang 6y ago

This is a bad post for HN. Wikipedia links are good when a topic hasn't had much or any discussion, and then only if there isn't a good alternative article available. But since race relations in the US are the most-discussed topic of the moment (perhaps in the world? and certainly here), this is the worst-possible use of Wikipedia on HN. For some reason, this issue about Wikipedia submissions has been coming up a lot lately: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20wikipedia%20HN&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Moreover, you editorialized the title to make it more inflammatory. That's exactly the opposite of what the site guidelines ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

seesawtron 6y ago
The char limit on titles in HN doesn't let you post the original title, how would you fix such a thing given this limitation?
- Antoninus 6y ago
  Post the link to the anchor of the page and use the original title. P
- dang 6y ago
  The original title looks like "Interracial marriage" to me, which is plenty short - so I'm not following your question.
golf3 6y ago
It's because this place is full of cuckolds.

bradyd 6y ago

This title is somewhat inaccurate as there were a number of states where it was legal before 1967. 1967 is when the Supreme Court decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, forcing all states to allow it.

seesawtron 6y ago
You see the glass half full, I see the glass half empty.
hackeraccount 6y ago
How about "mixed racial marriage ruled illegal in 1967"