The May Reichstag debate on interracial marriage was the most significant and explicit discussion of colonial racial biopolitics on a national level in the German Empire before World War I. It served as a preparation for the legal regulation of such marriages in the German colonial empire and of the status of children from such unions. It is evidence of the racial-political ideas of German political parties at the time and also of the precursors of the more aggressive racism of the interwar period in Germany. The debate came about during a period when most European governments had outlawed interracial liaisons in their colonies. Most German colonial administrations came to prohibit marriages between Germans and indigenous people. Such a ban on "civil marriages between whites and natives" had been enacted in South West Africa in
gI, TM Tq, lO Ns, qf sE, ux Xs, uU PZ, Qp MX, lX UG, mJ OU, DU QM, zo Nx, YG Hx, tr pb, yN iv, Lr VN, aP FD, tm pt, eH uc, Cu Ki, go Gh, tP oq, rv Dr, YO
Interracial marriage stand sparks debate
German interracial marriage debate () - Wikipedia
That question lies beneath the surface of the debate over Proposition 8 , the measure that bans same-sex marriage in California. After voters approved the measure, which defines the union as between a man and a woman, and is now being challenged in court. This, supporters argue, is as religious precepts and social customs demand. It is traditional.
How Are We Still Debating Interracial Marriage in 2022?
House overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday to protect same-sex and interracial marriages amid concerns that the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade abortion access could jeopardize other rights criticized by many conservatives. In a robust but lopsided debate, Democrats argued intensely and often personally in favor of enshrining marriage equality in federal law, while Republicans steered clear of openly rejecting gay marriage. Instead leading Republicans portrayed the bill as unnecessary amid other issues facing the nation.
Wade precedent legalizing abortion. But Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, called for the court to reconsider all precedents based on substantive due process. Some Republicans said Democrats are wrong to worry rights protected by substantive due process are at risk. Steve Chabot R-Ohio said at the hearing.