The Church in a Multicultural Context, Attitudes Toward Intercultural Marriage (Chapter 4)

1. The Reality of Intercultural Marriage

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau in 1990, the number of intercultural marriages increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 956,000 in 1988. This indicates a rapidly accelerating trend. Among Korean Americans, the rate of intercultural marriages is not lower than that of other Asian ethnic groups. Furthermore, the longer their immigration history, the higher the intercultural marriage rate becomes.

During the 1980s, 44.5% of Korean women who married in the United States were married to non-Korean partners, while only 7.5% of Korean men did so. However, there were significant regional variations. In Hawaii, 67.44% of Korean women married outside their ethnic group during the 1980s, whereas in California, only 30.6% did so in 1980. In the Los Angeles area, where statistics on Korean marriages began to be recorded in 1975, the rate of intercultural marriages among Koreans was 26.0% in 1975, 34.1% in 1977, and 27.6% in 1979. However, by 1984 it had declined to 8.7%, and in 1989 to 11.0%, with most of these cases involving women. A major reason for the decrease in intercultural marriages during that period was the deployment of U.S. military forces overseas, such as during the Gulf War, which led many Korean women married to American servicemen to relocate outside of California due to their husbands’ assignments.

Generally, women are more likely than men to marry outside their ethnic group. However, in Hawaii, since the 1950s, the rate of intercultural marriage among Korean men has nearly equaled that of women. In Los Angeles County as well, the trend among men has shown a steady increase.

Meanwhile, intercultural marriage has shown a clear upward trend with each successive immigrant generation. According to marriage license applications in Los Angeles County in 1989, among first-generation immigrants, the rates of intercultural marriage were 3.7% for men and 13.3% for women. Among second-generation immigrants, these rates increased to 33.3% for men and 62.5% for women. Among third-generation Koreans, the rates rose to 68.4% for men and 100% for women. When comparing the rate of intercultural marriage among Korean women in 1989 with other Asian groups such as Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Vietnamese, Korean women in Hawaii had the highest rate (70.9%), while those in Los Angeles had the lowest (11.3%). For Korean men, the intercultural marriage rate in Hawaii was around 45%, placing them in the middle range similar to Filipino and Japanese men. However, in Los Angeles, the rate was the lowest at 4.5%.

Professor Harry Kitano of UCLA analyzed the contrasting patterns of intercultural marriage among Koreans in Hawaii and Los Angeles and identified several contributing factors. First is Hawaii’s historically tolerant social attitude toward interracial relationships. Second is the size and cohesion of the ethnic community. Unlike Hawaii, where the Korean population is small and geographically dispersed with a gender imbalance, Los Angeles has a large and concentrated Korean community, offering many opportunities for Koreans to meet potential spouses through churches, schools, social events, and recreational clubs. Third, and perhaps most importantly, is the influence of cultural adaptation. The longer Koreans live in the United States and the more exposure they have to American culture, the more they become detached from their ethnic community and experience changes in family structure, reducing parental influence over marital decisions. Women, in particular, tend to adapt more quickly to the new culture than men, which explains the higher rate of intercultural marriage among women. This process of cultural adaptation is closely tied to generational differences—second-generation Koreans show higher rates than first-generation, and third-generation even more so, in both Hawaii and Los Angeles.

2. Mixed Motivations

Why do people enter into intercultural marriages? Let us examine the reasons from demographic, historical, social, and psychological perspectives.

1) Demographic Reasons

As shown in [Table 1], schools in major cities of contemporary American society—now entering a new phase of immigration—are already racially mixed.

It is an undeniable fact that this trend is influencing every area of American society, including politics, economy, education, culture, and marriage. It is projected that by the mid-21st century, minority populations will surpass the White population in numbers. Specifically, non-Hispanic Whites, who accounted for 90% of the total population in the 1950s, are expected to drop below 50% before 2055.² The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that within the next 30 years, the White population will fall to 70%.

New York City is no exception. The New York City Department of Urban Planning announced that the proportion of the White population—which exceeded 60% in the 1970s—is expected to drop to 35% by the end of this century.³ On the other hand, this report predicts that the Hispanic population will increase significantly by the year 2000, surpassing the Black population for the first time in history. Based on birth rates and immigration trends of the 1980s, the report outlines how future racial composition may look. Joseph Salvo, a city demographer, stated that the racial makeup of the city is becoming increasingly diverse, and that a balance among major racial groups is expected to emerge.

[Table 1]

Student Population of Minority Groups (Black, Latino, Asian) in Major U.S. Cities

City	Student Minority Percentage
Boston	65%
Chicago	85%
Houston	83%
Los Angeles	87%
Miami	77%
New York	84%
St. Louis	78%

This trend suggests that racial and ethnic mixing among minorities in the U.S. will become an unavoidable reality in the future. In certain areas of the United States, the scarcity of a particular racial group may make it difficult for individuals to marry within their own race. Furthermore, as the minority population continues to grow, those who oppose interracial or intercultural marriage will increasingly be pressured to become more tolerant.

However, demographic change alone is not a sufficient reason to explain the rise in intercultural marriage.

2) Historical Reasons

Several historical events made the union between whites and non-white races possible.
The first event occurred in the early 20th century, when European immigrants began to gradually move to the United States, while African Americans migrated to the northern industrial areas as laborers.
The second event was the removal of racial segregation within the military during World War II.
The third was that American soldiers stationed overseas began returning home with “war brides” from Europe and Asia.
The fourth event was the 1967 repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, which had previously prohibited interracial marriages. The repeal of this law facilitated greater social interaction among different racial groups.

3) Social Reasons

Changes in social structure also influenced intercultural marriage.
In his book Mixed Blood, Paul Spickard outlines five socioeconomic reasons for intercultural marriage:⁴

(1) A gender imbalance within certain racial groups made it difficult to find a partner of the same race.
Due to historical factors like immigration patterns, wars, and slavery, minority groups have often struggled to find marriage partners within their own racial group. This trend is still evident in modern U.S. society.
For example, in 1980, about 45,000 Black women married white men, and this number increased to 69,000 by 1988. During this 8-year period, the rate of marriages between white men and Black women was higher than that of Black men marrying white women.
The Black male population is smaller than the Black female population in the U.S., especially in professional sectors. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, 66% of Black professionals were women.

(2) American society has become more open to racial and cultural differences.
Social changes that began gradually in the early 20th century accelerated over the past 20 years.
According to Gallup polls:

In 1958, only 4% of the total population approved of interracial marriage.
In 1968, that number increased fivefold to 20%.
In 1978, it rose to 36%,
And by 1983, it reached an impressive 43%.

Approval rates were even higher among Black Americans:

In 1972: 58%,
In 1978: 66%,
In 1983: 71%.

Age also plays a significant role in openness to intercultural marriage. In 1983:

18% of people aged 65 and over supported Black-white marriages,
32% of those aged 50–64 supported it,
45% of those aged 30–49 supported it,
And 63% of people under 30 approved.

Younger generations show a noticeably higher level of openness to intercultural marriage.

Given the continued trend, current statistics are expected to rise. As older generations pass and the average education level increases, acceptance of intercultural marriage is projected to grow. As intercultural marriage becomes more common, the perception that these families are unusual or abnormal will also fade.
However, this doesn’t mean that everyone will agree or support it.

One point to keep in mind is that survey results on acceptance of intercultural marriage may sometimes report inflated figures. This is because philosophical agreement and personal approval don’t always align.
According to a 1975 study, when white mothers were asked how they would respond if their daughters wanted to marry a Black man:

Only 14% agreed both philosophically and personally accepted it,
32% agreed philosophically but could not personally accept it for their own daughter,
44% neither agreed philosophically nor personally accepted it.⁵

As people change, intercultural marriage becomes more acceptable toward certain races and minority groups. However, the underlying hierarchy of preference likely remains unchanged.
Even if more people become open to the idea, the invisible line dividing “us” and “them” may still persist.⁶

(3) Successful generations are more likely to be interested in intercultural marriage.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, most European immigrants arrived in America under oppression and persecution.
Though they came from different countries and for similar reasons, they initially lacked a strong common foundation to unite them.
However, they did share two key perspectives:

The need to quickly assimilate into American culture,
A belief that Black Americans held a socially inferior position.

As time passed, later generations who achieved success began to open themselves to relationships with individuals of other races.
Rarely did the first generation marry interculturally.
In the second generation, intercultural marriage became more common.
And by the third generation, many married without regard to racial or cultural boundaries.

[Tables 2, 3, and 4] illustrate the preference trends among Black Americans, Korean Americans, and Chinese Americans when choosing spouses in intercultural marriages.

For Korean intercultural marriages, the data show that Koreans tend to prefer White and Asian partners.

[Table 2]

Intercultural Marriage Patterns among African Americans

Marriage Attitude	Before 1865	1865–1950	After 1960
Acceptable	– Blacks of same status (slave/free) – Africans	– Similar skin color / social status – Same geographic origin	– African Americans – West Indians
Understandable but Not Acceptable	– Native Americans	– Other Black groups (West Indian, African) – Whites	– Africans – Whites – Other races
Unthinkable	– Whites – Other races	– Whites – Native Americans – Other races	(not specified)

Source: Paul R. Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 355.

[Table 3]

Patterns of Korean Intercultural Marriages

	1st Generation	2nd Generation	3rd Generation
Acceptable	From same province (Korea)	White	Korean
	Korean	Asian	White
		Korean	Asian
Understandable but Unacceptable	Japanese	Hispanic	Hispanic
	Jewish		Black
	Filipino		Other races
Unthinkable	Asian	Black
	Black	Other races
	Other races

Source: Based on a 1994 telephone survey of 500 Korean-American men and women aged 20–35 in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. See Appendix [C-1].

(4) Socioeconomic class has become one of the influential factors.

Although there is no definitive statistical data showing which class is more accepting of intercultural marriage, it is generally recognized that *”those who are college-educated, knowledgeable, and possess a sense of art and culture tend to accept intercultural marriage more readily.”*⁷ Increased mobility and higher levels of education are contributing factors that make people more favorable toward intercultural marriages.

(5) Changes in family structure have made intercultural marriage more feasible.

There is no greater influence in society than the changes occurring within the family. The traditional family structure—typically a married couple with two to three children from the same race and cultural background—is rapidly changing. The number of single parents raising children has dramatically increased. Many people are also remarrying, and intercultural marriage has become common in remarriages. In these cases, children are often the first ones to interact with people of different races and cultures.

Table 4]
Patterns of Intercultural Marriage among Chinese Americans

	First Generation	Second Generation
Acceptable	Same village	Same Chinese dialect, Black Americans
	Same regional dialect	Different Chinese dialect, West Indians
	Same Chinese dialect	Japanese
	Same region	White Americans

Source:
Paul R. Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 354.

Another significant factor influencing intercultural marriage is the adoption of children from other racial backgrounds. In most cases, white families adopt children from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A large number of these adopted children end up marrying individuals of different races within the same cultural context. Their choice of spouse often reflects social, economic, and educational backgrounds, but their racial backgrounds are shown to be highly diverse.

Another significant influence on intercultural marriage is indeed this adoption of children from other races. Most of these adoptions involve white families adopting children from Africa, Asia, or Latin America. Many of these adopted children eventually engage in intercultural marriages with individuals of different races within a shared cultural context. Their patterns tend to be influenced by socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, but their choices in racial partners are strikingly varied.

4) Psychological Reasons

Although often speculative, psychological reasons sometimes become recurring patterns and are thus widely accepted as facts. Some consider intercultural marriage as a form of neurosis or abnormal behavior. Ernest Porterfield outlines six psychological reasons behind choosing a partner from another race: hostility, idealism, rejection, rebellion, demotion, and sexuality. It is important to note that all of these are considered to be driven by negative psychological responses.

(1) Hostility

In some cases, individuals may marry someone of a different race as a way of exerting control over or retaliating against a dominant culture. This hostility may arise from personal experience or as a reaction to being hurt while trying to serve or support their own racial group.

(2) Idealism

Some people marry someone of another race to prove they are open-minded and not narrow or obstinate. This can sometimes be a compensatory psychological behavior by individuals who habitually feel defeated, attempting to mask their self-pity with a gesture of broad-mindedness.

(3) Rejection

When individuals fail to adapt to their own racial or cultural group, they may choose intercultural marriage. In some ways, they can be seen as “misfits” in their own society. Couples like this may even go as far as making mutual declarations to reject each other’s ethnic customs or backgrounds.

(4) Rebellion

The nature and intensity of parental authority can become a strong hidden reason behind intercultural marriage. When parents exerted strong control over a child’s life before marriage, the child may respond with rebellion by marrying someone from another race. Such children often view parental care as oppression, and when they reach adulthood, they may choose intercultural marriage as a way to resist and break free from that controlling authority.

(5) Demotion

People who have low self-esteem or who have repeatedly felt devalued by members of their own race may, as a form of compensation, seek attention by choosing a spouse from another race. This can explain, for example, why white prostitutes might work under Black pimps. Likewise, during the 1960s in America, some liberal white middle-class women became involved with lower-class Black men due to a lack of self-worth.

(6) Sex

This involves sexual curiosity or sexual addiction toward individuals of a different race.

The above statistical, historical, social, and psychological theories often appear in combination—sometimes one, sometimes two or three together. However, these explanations have lost credibility today because they are superficial and may stereotype intercultural marriage in a negative light. These studies are also problematic because they fail to address the most central motivation for marriage: love.

Robert Staples once said, “People often say that those who engage in intercultural marriage do so out of rebellion against their parents, out of sexual curiosity, or other psychological reasons. But many people who marry within their own race do so for the same reasons. … Even when people marry someone very similar to themselves, they often do so for strange reasons, but no one questions those marriages.”

Distinguishing between healthy and unhealthy motives for marriage is difficult. Sometimes, marriages formed from problematic motivations survive and even thrive into happy families. These reasons—positive or negative—can apply to any kind of marriage. When any marriage is built on love and commitment, it has the potential for strength and success. Because intercultural marriages face social bias and prejudice, couples in such marriages may have to make an even greater effort to build a successful relationship.

It is now time to change the question we are asking. Instead of asking, “What did they do wrong?”, we should be asking, “How can we teach our children to be open and accepting toward people of other races?”

3. The Psychological Attitudes of the Public Toward Intercultural Marriage

1) Mixed Feelings

Over the past ten years of observation, it has been found that white children tend to hold a single concept of family, just as their parents do, and consider it as a standard. In the real drama of our lives today, there are many roles to explore and understand. Through conversations with children who have parents in interracial relationships, the following four reactions have been discovered:

(1) Denial

The topic of interracial marriage is treated much like divorce was understood a generation ago. That is, it is considered an “unspeakable and unforgivable sin.” Divorce was once stigmatized as a sin, and good families believed it was right to hide the fact and not mention it to their children. Some parents even deny the very existence of interracial marriages. Absolutely no photos of such children’s interracial marriages are found in the parents’ homes or wallets. These children are always hidden in the shadows. They only whisper about their marriages in private, with those who already know the fact.

(2) Explanation / Clarification

“Last Saturday, my child said they were going to marry a ‘blue baby’ (a derogatory term for a person of another race). What should I do? I can’t believe it!” Parents share their news in this way, seeking sympathy from others. Interracial marriage and dating remain taboo subjects in our society. It is viewed as a shameful issue, similar to an unmarried daughter having a child or a child choosing a same-sex partner. Such parents treat their daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, or grandchildren with great sadness. This remains a deeply distressing problem in their thoughts and conversations.

(3) Acceptance (Accommodation)

“My son is dating a Hispanic girl! It’s unbelievable! But what can I do? He’s going to live with her… it’s none of our business. Even if we don’t approve, since he says he will marry her anyway, we just have to accept it…” Even when others agree with the parents’ statements, these parents emphasize that they have not given permission to inform others of this fact. Parents try to gauge whether others support or oppose by the tone and attitude in their responses. These parents dislike being seen as old-fashioned, stubborn, or racist. Therefore, they try to hide their uncomfortable feelings about their children’s decisions by taking a middle-ground attitude.

(4) Support

“If parents who insist on their viewpoint would genuinely try to protect their children, and approach it with love, then these issues would greatly diminish!” When children marry and bring their spouses into the family, becoming one household, family restructuring is not an easy matter. Especially when race and culture differ, the tension and problems are expected to be serious. Whether the new relationships formed among extended family members will be strengthened or weakened, and what the content of those relationships will be, remain serious concerns.

Of course, as shown in [Table 5], even if interracial and intercultural marriages increase rapidly in the future, it remains doubtful whether society will automatically and positively accept these unions. Individuals may recognize and accept them within their personal relationships. Intercultural families are expected to receive cooperation regarding interracial marriages. Those who know of some mixed-race couples who have failed or whose children struggle with identity issues are likely to hold negative attitudes. On the other hand, those who know successful interracial marriages with well-adapted mixed-race children will likely have cooperative attitudes. Just as it is uncertain whether marriages within the same race will succeed or fail, it is also clear that intercultural marriages remain uncertain. New attempts always involve higher risks. Almost all interracial families who cooperate and love each other believe that their difficulties ultimately make them stronger.

[Table 5]

Annual Statistics of Intercultural Marriages in the United States

Year	Total Marriages (Cumulative)	Black/White Marriages	Annual Growth Rate
1960	40,491,000	51,000	0.01
1970	44,597,000	65,000	0.01
1980	49,714,000	166,000	0.03
1988	52,613,000	218,000	0.04

According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics: data from 1990 shows that the number increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 956,000 in 1988. Intercultural and interracial marriages continue to show rapid growth.

4. Reasons for the Change in Attitudes Toward Intercultural Families

Recognition as Healthy Marriages

A minority of people are interested in interracial marriages as a social ideal, and some groups even recommend interracial marriage as a step toward the unity of all humanity.

From a purely biological standpoint, it is a proven scientific fact that in all living organisms—plants, animals, and humans—mixing different lineages within the same species strengthens the species. Those who accept this fact tend to believe that interracial or intercultural marriages produce relatively “stronger” offspring.

Another view held by those who believe intercultural marriage is normal and healthy is that such marriages can bring about true equality in this land. Joseph Washington stated in his book Marriage in Black and White that “Only through marriage can Black people be fully accepted equally among White people, and Whites also be fully accepted among Blacks.”11

No religion currently officially endorses intercultural marriage as doctrine. However, the Bahá’í Faith, which emphasizes human unity, teaches this view. It sees interracial marriage as a service to humanity, resolving racial conflicts and as the first step toward uniting all races.

Acceptance as Special Marriages

Some believe marriage is a destiny that must face challenges, so it should be formed and maintained between similar partners. This philosophy can be summarized by “the rare, the disabled, the superior.” These people think the more similar personality traits spouses have, the higher the chance of success. Similar ethnic backgrounds, education levels, social status, religious beliefs, racial identity, and values are believed to reduce tensions in relationships.

Those who hold this view restrict individual freedom to choose a marriage partner and, while reserving judgment on the equality of all people, argue that the best marriages occur between similar people. Interracial couples who go against social norms are choosing a special and unique path. When interracial couples make such choices, their determination to live with the strong opposition from the system must be accepted and respected.

Pastor C. Eugene Askew supported this view in his article titled “Must My Daughter Marry a Black Man?” stating:

“I hope my children will find suitable partners among young people similar in religion, culture, economic background, and race. However, if circumstances around them decide otherwise, my wife and I declare that we will love and understand their spouses, friends, and even grandchildren.”12

Social problems and pressures continue to be strong obstacles for those pursuing such marginalized and “risky” paths. Intercultural couples recognize these obstacles but do not see them as insurmountable. This is because once they choose to take the risk, there are supporters who willingly accept and assist them in maintaining this “special relationship.”

Opposition Due to Problems

Some say interracial marriage causes too many problems and raises too many questions. Their opposition is not based on minority or racial superiority but on sociological and cultural dynamics.

Many forces try to prevent or destroy mixed marriages. Among the strongest are economic and relational reasons. The parents, family, and friends who could most support intercultural couples may be the strongest opponents. One major reason for opposition is the belief that children born to such couples have no other choice but to suffer. Mixed-race children are expected to suffer from identity confusion, racial slurs, and stereotypes. Moreover, interracial families often face discrimination in jobs, housing, and even when such discrimination is illegal.

These opponents think society still doubts the motives of intercultural couples, and many believe that those who decide to marry interracially negatively affect many others. Regardless of how much the couple truly loves each other, the price they pay is too high.

Rejection as Destructive Marriages

There are groups united in opposing interracial and intercultural marriages from a different philosophical standpoint. They believe these marriages are wrong because racial mixing weakens races. Particularly, Whites argue for separation to protect the purity of their blood. Groups such as White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan, and Skinheads oppose interracial marriages on this basis.

Other groups oppose intercultural marriages, believing that continued interracial and intercultural marriages lead to identity loss and even cultural suicide. In the 1960s, militant Black activists emphasized the necessity of racial and cultural separation to avoid assimilation into the dominant society. They declared that intercultural marriages weaken or destroy identity—this was Malcolm X’s argument.

Marriage is ordained by God. God entrusted men and women with the mission to share life’s joy and bring children into the world. Every individual must carefully consider whether or not to marry and with whom, clearly understanding God’s blessing and guidance. Because the choice of marriage is very important, brides and grooms must receive the blessing of their families and society.

5. Prayer for Intercultural Families

Because the number of intercultural families is still very small, stereotypes about them are easily formed and once established, are hard to change or remove. When one listens to these stereotypes or myths far from reality through dialogue or observation, they include:

(1) Intercultural marriage contradicts biblical teachings and examples.
(2) Partners in intercultural marriages cannot adapt to the environment or have neurosis.
(3) Only Whites can question whether intercultural marriage is recommendable.
(4) Divorce rates in intercultural families are higher than in same-race marriages.
(5) Children of intercultural families will be rejected by both racial groups.
(6) Children of intercultural families inherit inferior genes.
(7) Children of intercultural families are victims of their parents’ choices.

Such stereotypes should be researched to measure their reliability, and their negative concepts must be corrected as soon as possible. Most Korean women in intercultural families live in extreme loneliness, thorough alienation, and fear. Especially, mental illness, maladjustment, and juvenile delinquency issues in intercultural families remain hidden except for cases reported to the police. Due to cultural reasons related to shame and face-saving, psychological problems are often not acknowledged. Most problems are dealt with within the family rather than seeking outside professional help.

Korean women in intercultural families represent a prime example of the ongoing issues of gender and racial discrimination in this land. To help understand this, one must first understand Korean cultural consciousness. If the ultimate solution to racial conflict and discrimination is placed on intercultural families, understanding interculturality and taking measures for the restoration of disadvantaged families should be seen as a great earthly mission God has given us, and our missional duty above all else.

For reference, organizations supporting intercultural families are provided.13

[Notes]

New York Korea Times, January 31, 1995, A7.
Henry III, William A., “Beyond the Melting Pot,” Time (April 9, 1990): 28-31.
Korea Times New York Edition, Korean language version, March 30, 1995, p. B.
Spickard, Paul R., Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1989), p. 69.
Ibid., pp. 293-294.
Ibid., pp. 371-372.
Ibid., p. 7.
Portfield, Ernest, Black and White Mixed Marriages (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1978), pp. 59-84.
Bode, Janet, Different Worlds: Interracial and Cross-Cultural Dating (New York: Franklin Watts, 1989), p. 81.
Spickard, Mixed Blood, p. 313.
Joseph R. Washington, Jr., Marriage in Black and White (Boston: Beacon, 1971), pp. 326-327.
C. Eugene Askew, “Should My Daughter Marry a Negro?” in Marrying Across the Color Line, edited by Cloyte M. Larsson (Chicago: Johnson, 1965), p. 33.
Appendix [C-3]