Reddit mentions of What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America

The usual disclaimer is along these lines: These listings just indicate previous articles that may be applicable. This is not to discourage new questions.

A search for

> jim crow asian

(merely as likely terms to have been in an article) includes a reply, When interracial marriages were illegal in some states in the U.S., what did biracial people do? Could they simply not marry anyone in those states?. They say they "assume" it was true in other states but provides no data, but they correctly note that Loving v. Virginia's Supreme Court decision says "While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference." (here, in note 11).

I found a few more general posts, but they don't talk about marriage in particular, so I don't know whether they apply to marriage too.

How were non-black minorities treated in the Jim Crow South. /u/Dubstripsquads's reply says that different categories were variously treated as white or as non-white, depending on location or time.

There was also What was Jim Crow/segregation era America like for non-black minorities? It cites and approves of the book What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America.

What was the status of Jews and Asians in America during racial segregation? is older and doesn't cite sources.

It is not a sensationalist comparison. Peggy Pascoe, late historian and author of What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, wrote an article a few years ago on the similar rhetoric used to support anti-miscegenation laws and anti-gay marriage laws called "Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation."

She concluded:

> Supporters of same-sex marriage face formidable obstacles, but in large part because of the successes of twentieth century opponents of miscegenation law, they have also found support that interracial couples in the 1930s would have envied--from legal experts on the constitution, from county clerks in Oregon who recently decided that rather than discriminate on the basis of sex, they would refuse to issue any marriage licenses at all (to opposite-sex or same-sex couples), and even from the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, who cited the Loving case repeatedly in their Goodridge decision. If the campaign for same-sex marriage succeeds (and I hope, very much, that it does), it will be not only because of the efforts of lesbian and gay activists but because of the civil rights advocates (black, white, Asian American and American Indian) who spent so much of the twentieth century working to put an end to American's three-century tradition of miscegenation laws.