During the 1920s-1930, William Meehan, the youngest son of Charles and Hester, was a member of the Oak Park Debate and Public Speaking Club. The Club promoted free speech and condemned intolerance. William took the affirmative in a debate about repealing laws against interracial marriage.

The majority of people believe that if any certain thing is undesirable, any law prohibiting it is right and just. But that is not always the case when we consider the facts.

Prominent among such laws is the law in force in many states prohibiting racial intermarriage.

It is true that marriage is a hazardous undertaking at best, and that mixed marriages add greatly to these hazards. Therefore, there is a grave doubt that the majority of them work out satisfactorily. Yet laws forbidding such marriages only complicate the problem. They area symbol of bigotry, intolerance and prejudice. They are the antithesis of democracy. They add to interracial relations the glamor of the unattainable.

Most people believe that these laws preserve racial purity and prevent'amalgamation. The facts give the lie to this contention. Affection cannotbe regulated by decree. Such things must be regulated by individual reason if we are to be and remain a free people. Actually, these laws are the cloak under which miscegenation flourishes and the bed upon which il­ legitimates are spawned.

For more than 300  years, we have had laws forbidding amalgamation. Yet so rapid has been the mixture that today 80%, or approximately 10 million American Negroes, have traceable white blood in their veins. The lawmakers themselves have been the worst offenders, as is evidenced by the fact that 90% of first-generation mulatto children are born of Negro mothers. The law has also failed dismally to keep the white race pure. If every visible Negro in America were deported tomorrow, there would still be rivers of Negro blood in American veins. More than 10,000 nearly white persons with Negro blood are absorbed by the white race every year. Among those who have received the tinge were Alexander Hamilton, and, it is declared upon good authority, Sears of Sears Roebuck; and Warren G. Harding. Many others are known to Negroes. More than 5,000,000 white Negroes are included in the white population of America.

This law is not in accord with the spirit of the Constitution, as it forbids freedom of choice of mate. It establishes caste and is the first step toward forbidding Italian to marry Jew or Irish to marry Swede. It is plainly a manifestation of racial arrogance and Hitler Nazism.

It undermines our prestige in foreign countries where we preach democracy and the abolition of caste. Those people are well aware that we preserve caste at home by a law forbidding citizen to marry citizen because of race. That paradox makes us appear ridiculous and brands us as insincere and flagrantly hypocritical.

This law protects the licentious who desire to sow wild oats in black soil and at the same time be legally absolved of all responsibility to harvest the crop. These men would hesitate before sowing if this law did not protect them from giving mother and child a name and support.

The Negro male who indulges in interracial relations is not immune to responsibility for his acts. He is always subject to reprisal and often the mob.

The white male is immune while the Negro mother must bear 100% of the burden of rearing the offspring, although only 50% guilty. This is putrid sportsmanship and is not in harmony with the American spirit of fair play. Moreover, it is contrary to the Golden Rule. Thus, it seems that the law succeeds only in the mongrelization of the Negro. That it has never prevented miscegenation is attested by the large number of mulattoes who began to appear almost as soon as the first female slaves arrived on our shores.

Many believe that to repeal the law would result in wholesale mixed marriages. Do we have such little faith in our ideals and in our ability to instill them into our children that we fear to grant them freedom of affection? Do white men fear that their sons would be unable to resist the charms of a sun-kissed American female? Do they fear that their daughters will rush to the shelter of dusky arms? There can be no other conclusion. 

Surely the white people of America have more pride of race than that. If they have not, they have nothing that is desirable to perpetuate in its purity. In any event, the law for them is wholly superfluous.

Negroes who fear the repeal of the law are unduly alarmed. If they fear that their dusky sons would be accepted in marriage by any white girl they might choose; they are sadly mistaken. The fact of the matter is that they would not meet any more white girls socially than they do now. If these same parents fear that every white man is a Romeo who will court their ebony daughter with matrimonial intent, they would be disillusioned.

As a rule, white boys would continue to marry white girls, and Negro boys to marry Negro girls, despite parental fears. And if the American Negro has no greater faith and pride than that in the contribution of Africa's children to our way of life, no greater respect for the toil and blood of their ancestors, whose callused hands helped build America, and whose blood was shed to make and keep her free; then they do not deserve to keep their identity, but deserve to become only a memory in America.

Repeal of the law would not require anyone to marry outside of his or her race, so why fear a hazard no one is required to take.

Repeal of the law would not entirely eliminate illegitimate mulattoes any more than illegitimate whites and blacks are eliminated at present. But it would cut the number to a minimum.

Let us not for a moment suppose that repeal of the law would lead to wholesale marriages between the races. Let us take for example the state of Iowa. Mixed marriages are legal there. Yet there has been no epidemic of mixed marriages in that state. In fact, many of the mixed marriages performed there have been persons who came from states that forbid such unions.

It might be argued that if they could not have married in Iowa they would not have married at all. That may be true, but they would have mixed just the same. Any mixed couple that has counted the cost and find their affection great enough to go to another state to marry, will certainly mix without benefit of clergy if no legal marriage can be consummated. Is not a legal marriage to be preferred to fornication?

God made different races and he must have wanted them that way. But there is positive scriptural proof that he did not want any interference with individuals who wished to enter into mixed marriages (Numbers 12:9-10). The wrath of God was stirred because of opposition to individual free choice because of race. I would not presume to dare to champion that which God condemned.

Moses married an Ethiopian woman; yet neither the Jews nor the Ethiopians lost their identity because of it. Why should either black or white in America fear loss of identity?

Thus, when we examine the facts, it is evident that the law forbidding the intermarriage of races is one of the most pernicious on the statute books of many of our states. It is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It is a law of caste and fascism that destroys our influence for democracy.

It has failed completely to prevent miscegenation. It has failed to keep any race pure. It protects the licentious. It is a prolific breeder of fornication and illegitimate children. It is contrary to the expressed will of God as recorded in the scripture.

Therefore, the law should be repealed.