| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2008/5/28-6/1 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50075 Activity:high |
5/28 I just learned that interracial marriage was illegal in 16
states until 1967. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia. GO REPUBLICAN STATES!!! McCain #1!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542138
\_ Two generations from now people will think the whole fear of
gay marriage is just as bizzare.
\_ Certainly the labeling people as in "fear" will be.
\_ Ok, if you want me to call you a bigotted idiot instead
I can do that for you.
\_ Not really. There are religious reasons for the latter and
not the former. Personally, I think the government should
stay out of marriage entirely.
\_ There were religious reasons cited 50 years ago as well.
And the government can't stay out of marriage entirely.
There are legal rammifications to marriage that you can't
magically solve by contract law.
\_ 1. There are no religious arguments that any major religion
can cite. People can always make sure their own
can cite. People can always make up their own
religions, but certainly interracial marriage is
not prohibited by the major ones.
\_ The "Curse of Ham" was used as justification against
interracial marriage. And see below. But why the
hell does it matter what one religion cares about
marriage? We aren't talking about religious marriage
we are talking about the state's concept of marriage.
You know, the state that isn't supposed to be
involved in that whole religion thing.
\_ Since there's really not any scriptural
evidence for Black people having anything to do
with Ham, let alone that you shouldn't marry
decendents of Ham, all that proves is that people
can make up BS to justify their stupid ideas.
That's not even remotely compareable to the actual
explicit scriptural prohibition of homosexual
intercourse.
\_ You filthy shrimp eater!
\_ Despite what you've heard, the New
Testement also forbids homosexual
Testament also forbids homosexual
intercourse.
\_ I haven't heard diddly. I was lucky
enough to be born to a family that didn't
think some crazy ass book from 2000
years ago should be used as an excuse
to deny other people their rights
\_ "A woman should learn in quietness and\
full submission. I do not permit a woman
\_ Ok, thanks for admitting you're
completely ignorant. Next time you
have no idea what you're talking about
why not just keep out of the
discussion?
\_ No, I think your "but my religion
says to keep The Gays second class
citizens" argument is stupid.
Your religion says a lot of shit,
why should it affect me?
\_ You made an invalid comparison
I pointed it out. Your bluster
does not conceal this.
\_ The fact that The Bible tells
you that gay marriage is EVIL
should affect me no more than
that shrimp are not kosher.
Why the hell are we basing
our laws on what The Bible
says? There's a word for
that. Theocracy. Last I
checked our constitution
specifically prohibits
theocratic rule.
\_ "A woman should learn in quietness and
full submission. I do not permit a woman
to teach or to have authority over a man;\
she must be silent..."
That's New Testament, too. Do you support
that one?
to teach or to have authority over a man;
she must be silent..."
That's New Testament, too. Do you support that one?
\_ All of my elementary school teachers were women.
\_ What if he does? This is a tangent.
2. We can avoid #1 entirely if government stays out of
it. There is no legal ramification to marriage that
cannot be resolved by contract law. Name just one.
\_ Immigration. Visitation rights for prisoners.
Health care for people who get it via being the
spouse of someone with health care (important if
you have a medical condition). Not to mention all
that messy divorce law, especially for people who
have children. Need I go on?
\_ Yes. Why can't these be solved by contract
law again? I see no unsolvable problems.
\_ Marriage provides rights that are granted by
non signers of the contract. I can't create
a non marriage contract that lets me file my
taxes as a married couple. I can't create a
non marriage contract that forces immigration
to treat the other signer the same way they
would if we were married. etc. That's not
contract law. That's rights the state has
decided are inheriant to married couples.
\_ You are bogged down in semantics. Just
because it is that way doesn't mean it
has to be that way. Other law could
resolve those issues. There's no reason
it couldn't.
\_ Other law. Non contract law. I'm
not sure why you have this hardon for
changing the name of marriage to
something else, but I'd say the
person with a semantic problem is you.
My main point is that marriage has
significant, non religious, non contract
rights assiciated with it, which is
something I think people often forget.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/cud2h for a better list
\_ This guy's point is that you could have a
"cohabitation contract" which gives all
the enumerated rights/responsibilities. It
doesn't have to be a "marriage". Seriously,
suppose I'm a fat lame non-gay geek, and my
similarly fat, lame, non-gay geeky roommate
and I decide to give up on women and try
to forge an economic and social alliance
such that we can better take care of each
other? No sex, just, this guy can handle
my finances, make medical decisions,
visit me in prison, etc.? Why should that
be forbidden simply 'cause we're not
romantic partners? This "marriage" thing
under the law needs to be generalized to
not just hetero romantic/breeding partners,
and not just gay romantic partners, but
to anyone who can benefit from having even a
non-romantic domestic partner of either sex.
The only reason to deny this is religious.
\_ If you want to make something that has
the exact same legal benefits of marriage
in the eyes of the state, and you want to
call it something other that marriage and
get rid anything called marriage at the state
or national level, well, ok. But it is
basically marriage, whatever you want to call
it. I'm not sure what benefit you get by
changing the name.
changing the name. And the guy above said
there were no rights to marriage that couldn't
be solved by contract law. That's wrong. To
solve them you have to change a hell of a lot
of other laws to say "this right is granted
to a couple that has signed into a binding
whatever-you-want-to-call-it relationship".
The fact that someone can ignore such giant
benefits as marriage immigration and tax
laws means they obviously have never thought
just how big of an advantage married couples
have in the eyes of the state.
have in the legal system.
\_ You're not thinking about it the right
way. Reread what you responded to. It's
also *very* important what you call it
because marriage has religious significance
that "cohabitation contract" does not.
You're not thinking ahead of me. You're
actually still behind me.
\_ No, I know exactly what you are saying
I just think you are wrong. There is
nothing inheriantly religous about
marriage. Changing the terms will
not change any signifcant group's
minds about the issue. Domestic
partnerships, cohabitation contracts,
whatever you call it, people still know
it is "marriage".
\_ Well, no. It's not. Even today many
people "get married" twice (once
at the courthouse and once in
church) so the difference must
matter to them. I don't think
anyone has a problem with gay
people willing each other property,
for example. The term 'marriage'
means something in particular to
many religions quite apart from
whatever the law says. This is a
case where the legal definition
reflected the societal norms of a
Christian nation, but it is no
longer appropriate for the law to
be involved in, or recognize,
marriage. I think you would find
a lot less opposition if there
wasn't an insistence of legalizing
wasn't an instistence of legalizing
'gay marriage' which conjures up
images of a gay priest, gay wedding,
gay honeymoon, and adopted gay kids.
If gay people want to 'get married'
the law has no grounds to be involved
in their religion and should not
be able to stop them , but if it
wants to deny them their rights
as human beings that's a problem.
A happy resolution is if the
gov't stays out of the marriage
business (e.g. marriage license)
entirely. It's NOTB.
\_ Saying that over and over won't
make it true. -tom
\_ sex is bad. - motd not getting laid guy
\_ Why am I not surprised that
you want the government
involved in yet another
aspect of our lives - our
love life no less?
\_ Red herring. You're not
suggesting less government
involvement, you're just
suggesting that the
government change what
it's called. -tom
\_ Not entirely. I think
"marriage" as defined
by the government
should be dissolved.
There is no need for
divorce court, for
marriage certificates,
joint income tax
filings and some other
constructs. Others
should be handled
with power-of-attorney
and contract law. I
am not merely
advocating we keep
marriage as-is and
rename it. It should
be (as a government
construct) abolished.
\_ You can go live your
libritarian fantasy.
The rest of us actually
live in the real world
where some of these
things matter. And
I hope you never fall
in love with someone
who isn't a citizen.
(Or have children.)
\_ Why? Because
"being in love"
grants rights?
Any rights
assigned by
marriage are
arbitrary and
be assigned
without marriage.
\_ saying that over and over again makes
it true - !tom
\_ And ever since this was fixed, racial relations have been perfect!
\- when i read LOVING v VIRGNIA, it was jaw dropping to
read stuff like "god put the races on different continents
because he wanted them apart" ... the fact that that was a
because he wanted them apart" ... esp the fact that that was a
virginia judge writing in the 60s and not a 1920s klansman
in BF, Alabama. The woman n the Lovings case died in the
last couple of months.
\_ Don't you think it's an improvement that a black man can walk
down the street with a white woman and not be killed for it? -tom
\_ only if you're pro Negro
\_ Which has precisely nothing to do with the laws changed.
\_ An interesting assertion. Any evidence? -tom
\_ In which state did Obama's parents get married?
\_ Pakistan outer territories i believe.
\_ "There is no legal ramification to marriage that cannot be solved
by contract law". Um, what? Can someone explain how "contract
law" can give a gay couple the right to inherit unlimited amounts
of property taxfree from their partner or transfer unlimited
amounts of property with their partner tax free? Or get the
social security benefits or federal pensions of the surviving
partner?
\_ You just assign those benefits with a contract other than
a "marriage contract". Just because some other things (like
SS) are broken doesn't mean they can't be fixed. "Gay
marriage" isn't the problem. The problem is that so much of
our law involves "marriage" to begin with. It's an outdated
construct not relevant to modern society except for those
who choose to practice it for religious purposes. Instead
of "spouse" you can substitute "assignee". You don't have
to get married at all in theory.
\_ Please provide some support for the assertion that
marriage is "an outdated construct not relevant to modern
society." Extra credit if you can manage to do it without
circular argument. -tom
\_ How about the fact that gay people want to do it and
that many people are vehemently opposed to allowing
them. Clearly marriage means something to many people
and means something else to gays. Since it excludes
gays, the construct is outdated since gays are people
with rights, too. Instead of creating a new construct
which includes gays and calling *that* marriage why
not eliminate marriage entirely? Marriage is not a modern
concept and the increasing number of cohabitating couples
who never get married attests to that. I am surprised to
find you on the pro-marriage side of the fence. Why are
you so adamant about co-opting the term marriage which
already has a clear meaning in a well-meaning attempt
to extend the rights of marriage to gay couples when
there is no real reason to use the term at all
anymore except in a religious context? I mean, why
should "married couples" have the option to file taxes
together or separately, but "unmarried couples"
cannot? At least the government is starting to see
how stupid *that* is by eliminating the marriage
penalty. I can't really think of any non-religious
reasons that marriage is still relevant in the modern
world.
\_ Effort expenditure: A
Argument advancement: F
Extra credit: F (circular argument used).
The reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious.
You've been presented in this very MOTD with numerous
examples of non-religious reasons why marriage is
still relevant and you've ignored them, as you're
sure to ignore any other fact which fails to fit
with your absurd notions. I'm done here. -tom
\_ I think you are ignoring the facts. Cohabitation
is 10x more common now than in 1960. The circular
reasoning here is yours. The only reason "the
reasons for marriage are mostly non-religious"
is because the (outdated) law makes it that way.
If you subtract religion from the equation then
what reason is there to "get married"? If
it's not about religion then why do the
majority of couples get married both in a
church and in a civil ceremony? If the laws were
changed to reflect modern society then there
would be no non-religious reasons to "get
married" but as it stands currently people are
*forced* to "get married" which is why gay
couples wish to do so. If they DO NOT then they
are denied their rights and *THAT* is an issue
as we are becoming an increasingly agnostic
society instead of the Christian society these
laws were based upon decades ago. You should
not have to "get married" to enjoy *ALL* of the
rights assigned to marriage. Why would you
force people to do so?
\_ "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying
anything." --David Byrne
\_ You're just not listening because it's
not what you want to hear. Answer me
this one question I have asked twice
now:
"Why do most people get married both in
a church and in a civil ceremony if
marriage does not involved religion?"
marriage does not involve religion?"
\_ First of all, I don't think it's clear
that "most" people get married in church
and in a civil ceremony. Do you have
any evidence of that?
Second, marriage is important
*culturally*; marriage is the transition
from one social status to another, and
in some cultures, it's done in the church
because that's where it's expected to be
done, and often there is a social cost to
pay if you go get married by Elvis and
leave the family out of it. That being
said, there are plenty of cultures where
getting married in the church is *not*
expected, and people get married in
a redwood grove, or on a ship, or in
their backyards. You really have no
argument at all here. -tom
\_ I'm not concerned about what they
do in other cultures. I'm
concerned about the US where most
people are married by a priest
even if it's not in a church. Sure,
not everyone is. Most people are.
Even in non-Christian cultures marriage
is often a religious ceremony. To
play marriage in the US off as a
"social ceremony" and ignore the
religious significance is disingenuous.
Why does CA allow priests (who are
not representatives of the State)
to conduct marriages? Shouldn't it
just be performed by judges and
magistrates if it's a civil affair?
\_ In many cultures *within the US*
it is common to not do a church
wedding. The Bay Area, for example.
The US also allows ship captains
to perform weddings; does that mean
marriage is a maritime institution
that has no relevance in landlocked
states? You have no clue. -tom
\_ The ship's captain thing is
not true and, truthfully,
there is no reason for it either.
http://tinyurl.com/l7nqn
BTW, even in the Bay Area,
weddings performed by priests
are the norm. But you are
missing the point, which is
"Why give priests any power
over this at all?" They have
no other legal powers that I
am aware of.
\_ So wait, do Jews not count
when they married? |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542138 Profile E-mail If you want a good glimpse of the multiracial experience in America, get inside Louie Gong's skin. "I'm Nooksack, I'm Chinese, I'm French and I'm Scottish," Gong tells viewers of a multimedia piece he placed on YouTube to help spark discussion of multiracial issues. When I was a kid, I drank my Ovaltine with real milk, and my cousins and I liked our fried rice with salmon." At the same time that the nation's growing diversity and changing social attitudes are helping to swell the ranks of multiracial Americans at 10 times the rate of the white population, the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama, son of a black man and a white woman, has brought new attention, curiosity and discussion to their experiences. Obama has faced an endless barrage of questions anchored to issues of race and class, from his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to whether, in his own words, he is "too black" or "not black enough." com readers in this re-emerging national conversation on race, it became clear that multiracial Americans offered unique perspectives on the topic and that the nation is far from entering a "post-race" era. Gong, 33, is on the leading edge of what he calls the "modern multiracial movement." A founder of the Mixed Heritage Center, a Web-based resource collection for multiracial Americans, Gong is also vice president and a key spokesman for the Mavin Foundation, a Seattle-based advocacy group for mixed-race people and families. As the educational resources director for the Muckleshoot Indian tribe's college near Seattle, he is able to tailor programs to Native Americans of mixed heritage. He teaches classes and workshops on the topic and is helping prepare a museum exhibit on the mixed-race experience set to open in Seattle in the fall. Obama candidacy drives new interest As Gong's schedule attests, it's a busy, exciting time for folks who have worked for years to win understanding and acceptance of the unique path trod by multiracial Americans. Shades of experience Six multiracial families from around the country discuss their challenges, triumphs. With interracial marriage illegal in 16 states until 1967 and racist sentiments against it remaining to this day in some places, the number of biracial and multiracial Americans is relatively small at less than 5 million. Although it includes a number of high-profile celebrities and athletes like Tiger Woods, Mariah Carey, Derek Jeter, Vin Diesel and Halle Berry, it's well under 2 percent of the nation's current 302 million residents. "There's kind of a lot of hype that makes people think there's more, but there aren't," said demographer William H Frey, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution. Officially, the number was even a mystery until 2000, the first year the US Census Bureau allowed Americans to say they were of mixed race. Census counts vary Even now, there is confusion over various tallies offered by the federal agency. Some surveys, including the 2000 Census, allow respondents to choose "some other race" in addition to every possible combination of all recognized races. That inflated the count of multiracial Americans to 68 million. But the agency's annual Population Estimate Program, considered its most current breakdown, does not include "some other race" and results in a count of Americans who claim to be of "two or more races." Based on birth, death and tax records, the figure "really is our official estimate of total population and population by race," said Census spokesman Robert Burnstein. Snapshot of the melting pot See how racial and ethnic groups are dispersed throughout the United States. The most recent data, released May 1, shows the number of Americans of "two or more races" was 4,856,136 as of last July. Up from 4,711,932 the previous year, the tally indicates a 3 percent gain, which is 10 times the 03 percent growth of the white population in the same period and three times the overall US population growth of about 1 percent. It's about the same as the growth rates of the Hispanic and Asian populations. America's mixed-race population is up 25 percent since it was first calculated in 2000, while the nation's overall population has grown 7 percent in that time. Although still small in real numbers, the multiracial category is larger that the combined total of Native American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. |
| preview.tinyurl.com/cud2h -> www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/ next Marriage Rights and Benefits Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life. Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes: Tax Benefits * Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. Estate Planning Benefits * Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. |
| tinyurl.com/l7nqn -> www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_329.html A Straight Dope Classic from Cecil's storehouse of human knowledge Are ships' captains allowed to marry people at sea? Were ships' captains ever allowed to marry people while cruising the deep blue? So far as I can tell, sea captains in the United States cannot now and have not ever been able to perform marriages at sea or anywhere else, unless they also happen to be recognized ministers or JPs or something. The same goes for sea captains in Britain and the Soviet Union. However--and this is the interesting part--this myth is so widely believed, not only among the general public but among sailors, that both the United States Navy and the British Mercantile Marine Office have taken the extraordinary step of explicitly forbidding captains to do free-lance weddings. He shall not permit a marriage ceremony to be performed on board when the ship or aircraft is outside the territory of the United States, except: In accordance with local laws ... and In the presence of a diplomatic or consular official of the United States." Similarly, the official logbook supplied to ships' captains by the British Mercantile Marine Office warns that shipboard marriages performed by the captain are not legal. If the ship is registered in New York state, the captain can be fined or imprisoned. Sailors have it drummed into them that the captain (more properly known as the master) is the supreme authority on the ship, and one might easily jump to the conclusion that said authority extends to civil matters. The Soviet Union allows its masters to attest wills and draw up documents concerning births and deaths (although not to perform marriages). Finally, we know that in days of yore ships might be at sea or at least beyond the reach of civilization for two years or more. It thus seems reasonable to suppose that a master would be empowered to officiate at a marriage rather than have some local heathen do it. Nonetheless--and I've checked out seaman's guides going back to 1850--it does not appear that this has ever been the case. If anything further turns up, however, I'll let you know. SOMETHING FURTHER TURNS UP Dear Cecil: Contrary to your column, there is authority that a marriage performed by a ship's captain on the high seas is valid. The court also reasoned that Congress "had recognized that on board a ship at sea ... a law of marriage," because Congress had enacted a statute requiring a vessel's master to keep a log book recording every marriage taking place on board. The case is one of those freaks that crop up frequently in marriage law and make it impossible to offer any sweeping statement, about ships' captains or anything else, without having it studded through with asterisks and qualifications. Let's start with the one rock of certainty in this discussion: No state has enacted a statute explicitly authorizing ships' captains to solemnize marriages. However, in ruling on the validity of such marriages, the courts have waffled. On the one hand there is a longstanding legal presumption that if two people think they got married, they did get married, even if the proceeding by which this was accomplished was suspect. On the other hand, judges have also felt, jeez, we can't let just anybody solemnize marriages, we gotta have rules. This ambivalence has resulted in decisions on both sides of the fence. Fisher the court ruled a marriage by a ship's captain valid; It's important to note that in Fisher the court did not specifically single out ships' captains (as opposed to say, mailmen) as having the power to perform marriages; rather it ruled that, absent a statute to the contrary, and subject to certain other conditions, an exchange of vows between consenting parties constituted a valid marriage--as I read it, whether there was an officiant or not. There are still some states that recognize common-law marriage. Typically all that's necessary is that the parties be legally free to marry (eg, no undissolved prior marriages); So while you're correct in saying "there is authority that a marriage performed by a ship's captain on the high seas is valid," captains don't have any special powers in this regard. A close reading of Fisher suggests the ceremony might as well have been performed by a waiter. The family-law experts I spoke with scoffed at the idea that courts in the 1990s would recognize marriages by ships' captains on a non-common-law basis. There has been at least one case in which the court recognized a marriage performed by a "minister" who had gotten his credentials by mail order from the Universal Life Church. By comparison to such patent flakery, ships' captains seem like the soul of rectitude. THE LAST WORD Dear Cecil: Regarding ship captains and marriages, you should let readers know about the best possible resolution. It's a plaque I've seen on at least half a dozen vessels (mostly sailboats, for obvious reasons to anyone who already understands). It says, "Any marriages performed by the captain of this ship are valid for the duration of the voyage only." |