Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 50075
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
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?
2025/07/08 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/8     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/10/24-2014/2/5 [Recreation/Dating] UID:54740 Activity:nil
10/9    I'm a white guy who is with an Asian (mainland China) girl for the
        first time. We were having sex and when she was really enjoying
        herself she started yelling: "Fuck the chink out of me!"
        I tried not to laugh, but now (it's been a few days) I find it a
        little disturbing. What kinda issues does this girl have or should
        I ignore it cuz it's crazy talk during sex?
	...
2013/4/15-5/18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:54654 Activity:nil
4/15    http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-worker-says-shes-made-close-to-1-million-servicing-young-rich-guys-from-silicon-valley-2013-4
        URL says it all.
        \_ If I were a young rich guy, I'd find and keep a hot chick to myself
           instead of going to the prostitues.
           \_ the point is that women in Silicon Valley are like toilet
              seats. All the clean ones are already taken and the ones
	...
2013/3/21-5/10 [Recreation/Dating] UID:54633 Activity:nil
3/21    Is there a reason why women love junk mail and spam mail? I helped
        my family members get rid of Red Plum, Valassis, DMA, etc and
        everyone's junk mail has decreased significantly, however all the
        women in my life (wife, sister, mother) are pissed at me. Ditto with
        email spam: through their permissions I unsubscribed mailing lists,
        but now they want them back again because they're missing out on some
	...
2013/1/30-3/4 [Recreation/Dating] UID:54594 Activity:nil
1/30    "Want to have more sex? Men, stop helping with the chores"
        http://www.csua.org/u/z3x (news.yahoo.com)
        F*CK!  I've been doing this all wrong!
        \_ There is a Cantonese saying: "Don't feed your woman to a full
           stomach until she turns 70."  It's the same idea -- if you treat
           your woman too well, she won't behave.
	...
2012/12/4-18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:54543 Activity:nil
12/4    Why are eastern european models so plentiful and hot?
        \_ By "models" do you mean cam stippers? I wonder that
           myself.
        \_ Less processed food?
        \_ Genetics. I went to Estonia this summer and that's just what
           the women there look like: light eyes, blonde or light brown
	...
2012/12/6-18 [Recreation/Dating, Recreation/Media] UID:54549 Activity:nil
12/6    Lesson learned: don't talk about Monty Python on a date. Women just
        don't seem to get it.
        \_ You are dating the wrong women (for you) then. My sister-in-law
           loves it and yet I don't find it all that funny. It's not a
           gender thing.
           \_ is she a nerd? does she laugh funny? is she actually decent looking?
	...

	...
2008/9/11-18 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51135 Activity:kinda low
9/11    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
        \_ Warning, strong libUral slant. I mean, come on:
           "We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears
            to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on
            terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national
            interest for partisan advantage.
	...
2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50449 Activity:nil 85%like:50443
7/1     Who's smearing whom?
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/56u2nx [politico]
        \_ This article is really out to lunch.  The smears of Obama are
           everywhere.  There are whole websites devoted to proving
           that he's a gay racist from Indonesia who studied in a Madrassa,
           and there are armies of freepers feeding the rumor mills.  See
	...
2008/7/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50443 Activity:very high 85%like:50449
7/1     Who's smearing whom?
        http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DEFCE7F3-3048-5C12-00A118B64440DF50
        \_ This article is really out to lunch.  The smears of Obama are
           everywhere.  There are whole websites devoted to proving
           that he's a gay racist from Indonesia who studied in a Madrassa,
           and there are armies of freepers feeding the rumor mills.  See
	...
2008/3/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49536 Activity:nil
3/21    Jack Lalanne: How to be happy (from the 50's)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEboAJf9UVc
        People have been saying (what we now call hippie stuff) for a while
        \_ is he gay? as in queer homosexual gay? he's emitting a lot
           of gay signals, but then again, my gaydar is pretty weak.
           \_ Despite being born in SF to French immigrant parents, apparently
	...
2008/2/19-22 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:49188 Activity:nil
2/19    Why are there so many gay people on the Oxygen Channel? O!
        \_ Because gay (homosexual male) people like the same things as
           straight women?
           \_ No, because many straight women think all gay people are
              cute and neutered like the guys in Will and Grace (who you
              will notice never actually have sex, they just talk about it
	...
2007/11/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48672 Activity:kinda low
11/20   Most viewed pages on Conservapedia:
        http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
         1. Main Page [1,894,429]
         2. Homosexuality [1,475,437]
         3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [515,993]
         4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [416,375]
	...
2007/8/31-9/3 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:47869 Activity:high
8/31    This is why Edwards can't get elected:
        http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/r_m
        In a recent speech, John Edwards told Americans to sacrifice their
        inefficient cars, and specifically, to give up their SUVs. But the
        presidential hopeful is driven around in a Cadillac SRX Crossover,
        which guzzles gas at 15 miles per gallon. His spokesman says that
	...
2007/8/29-31 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:47795 Activity:nil
8/29    why haven't there been any jokes about psb homosexual code
        and foot tapping and Congressman Craig?
        I had no idea there really is homosexual code.
        \_ You grew up in a cave didn't you?
           \_ I didn't know there was a real homosexual code either.
              I guess psb and Senator Craig knew.
	...
Cache (4408 bytes)
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.
Cache (512 bytes)
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.
Cache (5037 bytes)
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."