One Fine Day

Ladies and Gentlemen, the first black president of the United States of America. 

As wonderful as this sounds, I like this version better...

Ladies and Gentlemen, the 44th President of the United States of America. 

I think it's a wonderful thing that we have come so far in so few years. I also think it's quite apropos that it was Martin Luther King Jr. day yesterday. And were he alive I'm sure he would be beaming. To think only fifty-some years ago racial segregation existed, and some hundred years before that slavery. And now today, the most powerful office in the world is held by the son of an immigrant from Africa. Today I am very proud to call myself American. This is change. This is progress. This is the future. 

Yet while I am elated for this change I look forward to the day when we no longer are celebrating a racial first. The first Asian to record a Billboard top ten. The first Native American to become a CEO. The first Latino to become a Coach in the Super Bowl. While these are all minuscule parts of the bigger picture of change, to me true change will come when we look past race and sex as a defining features. In the Benediction by Reverend Lowery he recited some very stirring words.

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around. When yellow will be mellow. When the red man can get ahead, man. And when white will embrace what is right.

I hope for that day. And I hope we're all working for that day. But more importantly I hope for the day when we don't need to rhyme race and rationale. The day when we're not white, yellow, red, or black; nor male or female. When we are all just human beings who will morally treat each other as complete equals. Or as the man himself once said, "Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.” That will be a fine day indeed.

More Economical Talk

When I was flying out to New Mexico I had a sobering chat with my taxi drive about the recession in America. He had told me that he held very little hope in the "American Dream" ever since he's had to resort to driving cabs in order to make money for his family. According to him he once owned a large construction company working out in La Canada, it was soon shut down after 9/11 when a lot of housing projects stopped. He then opened a sowing company with forty-five workers. With jobs getting exported to Mexico, he couldn't afford to keep up his operation and had to close shop. His story isn't the only sob story of recent years. I know plenty of my own friends getting laid off, and with the increase in living costs and the lack of jobs I too am feeling the pinch. But regardless the dim light he shed I kept my head up, and spoke only positively. I said that hopefully with Obama in office things will change.

Things need to change. And I only hope the momentum that Obama has built from campaigning carry over to his first term. It's no doubt that the biggest and most daunting task for Obama will be to fix the slumping US economy. Now, I'm no economical genius, and I've never even taken a class in economics (something I'll change someday); but I do consider myself a bright cookie with some ideas. If Obama asked me for some ideas this is what I would say:

• Create an FDR "Alphabet Soup" type of public works project. Our country's infrastructure sure could use the help, and plus it would create thousands of jobs. Popular Mechanic's had a great article on just a handful of ideas. I know Obama is planning on starting a gigantic “green energy” project for our country’s infrastructure, and no doubt these programs will help.

• Create tax breaks for those who hire within the United States, increase taxes on those who hire abroad. Hiring outside of the country hurts the United States by siphoning potential US jobs out of the country, and for the negative effect of taking advantage of cheap labor in other countries. A tax on those companies that hire outside would simply help cushion the blow that these companies are causing on our economy, and encourage creating more jobs within the US.

• Make stronger penalties to companies hiring illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration and cheap labor exploitation are unfortunate truths about the society we live in. It's a very complicated situation with no easy answer, but no answer should include having the brunt of the punishments placed upon the less fortunate. Punish the companies, not the workers.

• Give illegal immigrants an opportunity to become citizens of the USA. This may be a broad stroke, but it’s a big problem, and I think this will ultimately be a good thing. All these people want to do is become contributing members of a society. By giving them all the opportunity to become a citizens, you would be adding more tax money into the system, and eliminate illicit activity involved in the conspiracy of illegal immigrants.

• Increase "sin" tax. Certainly with all of the financial woes going on plenty of people will be hitting the bottle. This indulgence doesn't exactly help our situation I'd imagine. Neither does smoking, or eating fattening foods. We're having enough troubles with our healthcare system, and I personally see nothing wrong with adding additional tax to sources that are known to add health problems within the population (e.g. alcohol, cigarettes, fattening foods, gambling, etc...). This tax would encourage better health, and alleviate medical costs.

• Cut farming subsidiaries, or at least change the system. This one may be a bit over my head (for I don't know the full spectrum of this topic), but hear me out. Firstly, farm subsidies only support large scale commercial farming and not the family farmers. It blows my mind we're so opposed to the big box shops (i.e. Walmart), yet we're turning a blind eye and allowing commercial farming to put local farmers out of business. Second, subsidies encourage quantity over ethical and moral farming. Every farmer is paid the same regardless if they're using synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides, regardless if they're exporting and undercutting local farmers in third world countries (see Life and Debt, it'll open your eyes). Third, subsidies allow farmers to create cheap food and live-stock, enabling them to undercut farmers in other parts of the world. An example of this is milk farmers in Jamaica who need to dump their milk stocks because people buy cheaper powdered milk from the states. Lastly, cutting subsidies will prevent farmers from trying to feed and entire nation, creating an overabundance of food that is never used. Large scale commercial farming hurts local farming in the long run. We need to change current method subsidy program which encourages only commercial farming. (Two other resources I've used: Gristmill and The Heritage Foundation).

• Reestablish Skilled Labor classes in High-schools. With college becoming more and more expensive I think it's important that we provide the nations youth with feasible career paths outside of a higher education. While I cherish both my degrees, I don’t believe college is the right choice for everyone. I think there are plenty of options outside the higher education path, and by supplying younger people with multiple options you will help encourage those paths, and create more employment opportunities for high school graduates.

• Invest money into developing a cross-continental railway system.
This could be tagged onto the above idea of a large-scale public works project. First, I’m a huge mass transportation fan (especially the railway). Adding a more effective railway system would cut-down on car emissions by creating an affordable alternative to high gas prices. Better transportation to major cities would also cut on urban sprawl, as more people from out-lying towns would be able to work within the larger metropolitan areas. Second, a large public works project would create lots of much-needed jobs (no-brainer). And lastly, a cross-continental railway would create a worldly tourist destination in the states. We are currently seeing a boom in the tourism industry in America due to our weakened dollar, but why not create the infrastructure to keep this tourism strong? This country has so much diversity, and I think a cross-continental railway would be a great way to show it off. Plus it would add much needed income to towns all across the United States.

• Down-size the military, and transfer funds towards special-ops. I think (hope) that the time of large-scale army against large-scale army is over. Terrorism is our number-one enemy, and we need more intelligence than brute strength in this new world.

• Curb financial institutions from taking advantage of the public. The entire reason we're in this mess is the greed and corruption of banks and credit card companies. They had their chance, and they blew it. I think tougher regulations and a policing of their policies is needed for the good of the people. I know there are talks right now to make credit card companies have a fixed interest rate, and this is a good start. Too bad it won't go into effect until 2010. 

Running a country is no easy task, and I certainly don’t envy the uphill battle Obama has in store. And while it’s much easier to come up with ideas than to effectively apply them, I think these ideas are good points to at least consider. So what do you say Mr. Obama?

Quick! Dig up!

**BREAKING NEWS!! WE’RE IN A RECESSION**

Yes, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research we’re officially in a recession. The announcement Monday kind of felt like a ship captain telling you that the boat’s sinking as you have fish swimming at your ankles. But it's a good thing that the government let us know, or else the American people would be completely in the dark about today's fiscal situation in America (as can be shown in this poll by CNN in March of 2008). 

On my way to the airport this morning I had a sobering chat with my taxi drive about the economical situation in America. He had told me that he had very little hope in the "American Dream" ever since he's had to resort to driving cabs in order to make money for his family. According to him he once owned a large construction company working out in La Canada, it was soon shut down after 9/11 when a lot of housing projects stopped. He then opened sowing company with forty-five workers. With jobs getting exported to Mexico he couldn't afford to keep up his operation and had to close shop. His story isn't the only sob story of recent years. I know plenty of my own friends getting laid off, and with the increase in living costs and the lack of jobs I too am feeling the pinch. But regardless what he said I kept my head up, and spoke only positively. 

I hope things change for the better. Things need to change for the better. There is a lot the government needs to do, but there is a lot we can do as well. As bizarre as it may seem the best approach for the average citizen to help out in this economic crisis is to spend money. Not hit the mattresses and stay inside, not horde the money in your bank account, spend money. I know this is not an easy thing to accept, and as an unemployed citizen it definitely not something I'm trying to actively engage in. But that's the cold hard truth. 

Ok, so I probably didn't sell you on the spending money thing. But in all seriousness here are some other day-today habits we can establish that will help out our struggling economy. 

Shop locally. As convenient shopping online is it's only going to hurt your local electronics, garment, music, whatever shop. Keep money within your community, and shop outside it only when absolutely necessary. 

Buy American. This tip is a no brainer. I'm very much considering buying an American car my next go around. Not sure what is made in the USA? Check out Madeinusa.org, it's a nice little database to help you out. 

Stay positive. It's contagious. That smile will only spread. 

The economy is a nasty beast, and I don't understand a lot of it. But it does seem like common sense to me that if you keep money within the states and your local communities it will eventually sort itself out. I hope...

Old Post, but still relevant

Going through my drafted posts I noticed a bunch I hadn't finished. Here is one that still has some relevance, so I thought I would finish it...

*********

After a nice lunch of Zankou Chicken,  my friend proceeded to head out to the Arclight to see Bottleshock (One-word movie review: Meh). At a stoplight my friend (who was driving), was called upon by a fellow driver. Being the good samaritan that he was he let my friend know that his tire was looking a little (a lot) flat. My friend unbuckled his belt to lean forward to check it out, and soon enough the light turned and we were off. His belt was off literally for less than three minutes. But as luck would have it, this three  minutes was more than enough time for a bike cop to catch him with his seatbelt off, and promptly pulled us over for said violation. He was friendly enough, but as you can imagine my friend was slightly annoyed to have been pulled over for a momentary lapse in judgement. 

Two things went through my head after this incident. First, isn't it slightly ironic that a bike cop is pulling over a guy for not wearing his seat belt? Second, isn't it odd that California has a law to make people be safer by buckling their seat-belts, yet put those same drivers at risk to brain tumors and/or cancer by forcing them to wear hands-free devices. Of course I'm generalizing a common fear that has not been fully backed up. As of now there is no strong evidence to prove that blue tooth headsets cause brain tumors, as explained in this 2000 report by the FDA. But the truth of the matter is there have not been enough tests, and there has not been enough time to properly study the effects of cell phone use. Being that the technology is still fairly young. (The National Cancer Institute has a great article out-lining much of the research and pitfalls regarding cell-phone use thus far) Bottom-line is that we're not sure how cell-phone use affects our brains, but regardless California has submitted all of its residence to these "possible" side effects.

In my Medical Ethics class in college we examined vaccination laws, and how they affect the population. Some vaccinations contain ingredients that can be deadly to those who are allergic to them (and just googling to do more research some vaccines also include mercury, and have been proven to cause Autism in CHildren. But why listen to me? I'll let you do the research). But what we're looking at here is a classic example of utilitarian ethics. Doing something to benefit the whole, even though it may damage a minority. Certainly blue tooth head-sets save lives by creating safer driving conditions, and there are blue-tooth options that don't affix to your head. But the fact of the matter is that California is making its citizens wear a possible deadly device, while also forcing them to protect themselves with seat-belts. An interesting paradox I thought. 

"Isn't it Great that Prop 1 Won?" or "Don't H8te, Elevate"

I wanted to write another post about the election two days ago. Given all of the mixed emotions that I've been feeling over the past 2 days there is so much I want to talk about. I figured yesterday I'd give Barack the spotlight, cause he earned it. So today I'd like to talk about my first major election as a ""Californian"" (yes, double-quotes). 

I've always been impressed with the way California runs. While I hate the extreme taxes, I must say I am fairly convinced they all go towards something beneficial because the state (for the most part) is extremely efficient. An example of this was the manner in which their election was run. Weeks before the election I was given information in the form of multiple pamphlets. On the pamphlets they described each "proposition", an argument for, a rebuttal to the argument for, an argument against, and a rebuttal to the argument against. On top of all that the supporters (or those against) were shown underneath. Overall a very efficient system, and I like that they give the information out to all of he voters so that they are informed. 

Talking to someone at an election party the night of, I learned that propositions are actually a Western state creation. The voters of CA and numerous other states place votes into these propositions which dictate how taxes are used, the increase of taxes for certain actions, or the placement of new state regulations. Overall I like this idea. It gives more power to the people, and it [should] make the population want to pay closer attention to the movements of their government, given that their vote can drastically change the actions made by their state. 

An argument against could say that this enables large corporations or other specialty interest groups to invest money into advertising swaying popular opinion towards propositions that they've already paid lobbyists help get on the ballot. An example of this was the "Yes On Prop 10" campaign, a part of the Pickens plan. A plan created from a wealthy Texas Oil Man who spent millions of dollars to try to get rebates to create natural gas vehicles on the road. Natural gas vehicles that were created by his company. It was ultimately voted "no", fear of helping fund an oil tycoon. (Although I actually voted "yes", I like the idea of immediate action on removing diesel trucks from the road and putting more money towards wind power. Even if we are lining the pockets of a billionaire. But I digress...)

Another argument against this can be seen on the "yes" vote seen on Prop 8. Churches and many conservative groups pumped tons of money into the "Protect Marriage" campaign, supporting a vote for Prop 8 (They even paid for a sky writer). Even the fact that the Proposition was worded so that a "yes" vote means "no" is wacky. I think it should have been called "The Marriage Civil Rights Act", and a vote "yes" would open marriage to everyone as a civil right. Duh. 

But in closing I argue that ultimately the ability for citizens to vote for these propositions is a good thing. People/corporations/religious groups may funnel money into campaigns to support their interests, but I have faith in the voters to make a right and just decision. We should blame an uneducated population for unfortunate outcomes. If a vote "yes" on Proposition 8 has taught me anything it's that the peoples mindsets need to change, not the system. We still live in a world with ignorance, and it's up to us to shed light on injustice. Obama was a great first step, but it's clear we still have a long way to go until America truly becomes the "land of the free". 

Obama Wins '08

Well it's all over now, or rather, it's just begun. The United States of America voted in the first black President. And I couldn't be prouder. 

Last night was incredible. Being here in the States you could feel the change in the air. You could hear it by car horns carried through the air in the night, you could see it in the faces of those huddled together in Grant Park. Strangers would smile in the streets, and on a single day because of a single man we all became proud to be an American. Because, as Obama beautifully summarized in his victory speech last night, this is what America is all about. Rising from improbable beginnings to the most powerful office in America. 

Congratulations Barack. You've won. And nobody can ever take that away from you. Nobody can ever take that away from us. 

V-O-T-E

Happy November 4th. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and I was wondering why this isn't a National Holiday. We could call it, oh I don't know, Election Day? We already celebrate the 4th of July, our Independence Day, and what did we fight for? The ability to vote. Just a thought. 

Well I'm excited. No matter what happens today we will be facing change today. A huge change. You look at the international pulse and all eyes are on us. Within the next Presidency lies all of the answers to all of the United States current quandaries. Will a solid economical plan stop us from falling further into a recession? Can the impact of Bush's "No Child Left Behind" be turned around? How much longer will we remain in Iraq? What's going to be our next response to the violence in Afghanistan? Will further steps against stem cell research be made? Yet while all these positives are coming out of this election I'm certainly glad this race will be over soon. 

Seeing the amount of money and smear tactics used towards the end of the race has sickened me. Obama has spent nearly $230 million dollars campaigning, but who can blame him when the McCain campaign has resorted to use outright lies against Obama? Obama is the better choice of the candidates in my mind, and is how I'm going to vote. But should Obama win tomorrow night was it because of his superior policies, or because of his superior running tactics? Did morality or commercials sway the public over in the end? 

My worry is that we're too swayed by the advertisers opinion, and not enough by our own morality. I want the reason people vote for their selection is because they are convinced he/she will be a good an just leader and not because they will raise taxes and doesn't have a military background. Certainly I'm being cynical here, all in all I think the system is a good one. I think people who believe in a righteous cause will donate time and money to the campaign, and make the entire machine run efficiently. We've even seen corporations and religions donate funds into the policies they believe in. And while I like seeing 711 and Starbucks getting people to vote with coffee, it worries me that establishments such as the Church Of Latter-day Saints try to use their influence to sway the public opinion.

My only point here is to think for yourself. Don't let flashy commercials sway your opinion unfoundedly. The research is out there. It's your right and your duty to research the propositions and the elected. Be informed through research when you step into the polls today. 

VP Debates

I noticed, and you may have as well, I have a lack of political comments on this website. I enjoy political debates, and I enjoy talking about politics. But I find political conversations always seem to end one of three ways. 

1. Both parties agree on their points of view

2. Both parties disagree, and after talking in circles both parties agree to disagree

3. One party becomes so heated in the discussion they become loud, and the conversation ends in a huff

Anyhow, given a big election is happening soon I figure I might as well use my soapbox. So like my friend I thought I would talk about the VP debates from the other night. And like my friend I think I'll just do some bullet points. A few thoughts:

• The polls showed that Biden "won" the debate, but Palin seemed more "likable". I could easily see why. Palin dodged every hard question, and repeated her thoughts on renewable energy about five times. And after she over-played that card she resorted to "Well I'm obviously new to this Washington game. Awww shucks." I'll agree she's likable, but I'm just hoping people weren't blinded by her charisma and see what a poor VP candidate is she is. 

• I was pretty impressed by Biden. He stands by his views, and I like that. I thought he was a good debater, and I'll buy what he's selling. 

• I am disappointed by both parties to dancing around the gay marriage issue. I think it's great they're both recognizing equal civil rights for homosexuals, but why can't they make the logical leap into "redefining" the institution of marriage? I realize this is a hot button issue, and probably the reason why Kerry lost in '04. I understand this is a big taboo of the catholic church, but don't we have the separation of church and state in this country? At least I thought we did. 

• I think Palin made a big boo-boo to comment that she had no idea as the to the factors of global warming, and I'm glad Bidden called her out on it. 

• I'm all about clean coal technology. And had I been in Biden's shoes I would have also pointed out that coal is abundant in our country, and by supporting that research we'd be adding jobs in American, not supporting foreign countries for energy. 

• I think MLB should have waited a bit longer before starting the NLDS game. Country should come first... then baseball. 

Ignorance Has a New Name...

...and her name is Sharon Stone. 

While on the Red Carpet at the Cannes Film Festival she apparently opened her mouth and this foul comment was let loose, "I've been concerned about how we should deal with the Olympics, because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine. And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma - when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?" 

Here is the YouTube in case you want to listen to all of her driveling. 

There isn't much I need to say that hasn't already been spread like wild fire over the internet, but here are my two cents.

Firstly, for a Buddhist practitioner Sharon Stone sure needs to do some research on karma. Karma is when you say something offensive and hurtful to a Nation and you get your films pulled. Karma is when you compare 65,000 innocent people dying to a abuse by a government and you get all of your advertisements pulled. 

Karma is not a natural disaster killing innocents to pay back the crimes of a draconian government. Make no mistake, I completely disagree with the Chinese government's politics in many ways (Tibetan occupation, media and internet censorship, disregard for their  lower class,segregation of its minorities,  obstruction to the freedom of religion and freedom of speech to name a few). But to claim that karma is enacting against the people of a nation for it's government's actions is making karma to be a cold-hearted vindictive force, and not a universal energy that works towards equilibrium through cause-effect(as I believe it to be). 

This point reminds me of another article I read somewhere a few weeks ago. Many people are seeing the horrors of the Chinese and relating them directly to the people, and the nation as a whole. Many people are calling for the boycott of the summer Olympics due to China's occupation in Tibet, or their abuse of religious groups not recognized by the state. The article pointed out that doing so would only penalize the people as well. The Chinese people are a very proud and dignified people. The entire city of Beijing has been turned upside down, residents learning how to stand in line, memorizing English phrases, converting their shops to accept credit cards; all to become gracious hosts to the thousands and thousands of tourists that will soon flood their city. 

I visited China a few summers ago, and it was an amazing place. The people there are so hospitable and kind. You would walk into a house and they would feed you all of their food before they would even eat. They are a proud people, extremely loyal to family and friends, and exceptional hosts. To them the olympics is something they are proud of being a part of, they're hoping to show the Nation their best face. Of course all of this is getting over-shadowed by their government, but we should learn to divide these two constituents. A poor car does not make a poor driver, and visa versa. In America we should all be to aware of the fact that poor leadership can damage our image. If anything the Olympics will shine a spotlight onto all of China's dark spots, allowing its people to speak up against the government under the International eye. Which can only be a good thing. 

Isn't it Ironic? Don't cha think?

Wow. 

Remember that little post just below this one? Turns out while I was working with my friend today (the mentioned girl from below as well) the California supreme court passed a bill to allow same-sex marriages after thirty days of today. Not only that, but unlike Massachusetts it requires no residency for the marriage license. That means any gay or lesbian couple from around the nation could technically drive/fly to California and get married. This freedom could be limited, however, depending on whether the other states (or the federal government for that matter) recognize said marriage license (which by the way the federal government doesn't recognize such marriage licenses). There are also many social and religious groups currently fighting to collect signatures to put an amendment on the November ballot to overturn this current ruling. Which would hypothetically overturn the courts decision mad today. So if the bill does pass keep your eyes and ears open in November, and be sure to make your vote count. 

But bottom line is: it has started. California, one of the largest and most prolific of the United States has taken steps towards allowing gay marriage, and it's only a matter of time until the smaller liberal states follow through. I think radical shifts in a nations ideology take a long long time (think about how much racism still exists in our country), but this is a start. And as the Chinese say, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Oh by the way, the couple is now on the waiting list and will get married in California. 

Loving Lovingly Loving

I just ran across an obituary I thought would share with you. Mildred Loving, 68, suffered wounds from an auto accident and died in her home Friday, May 2nd. If you're like me you probably have no idea who Mildred Loving is. But after reading her obituary I was shocked that she is not more well known.

"At 2 a.m. on July 11, 1958, three policemen burst into the bedroom of Mildred and Richard Loving in Central Point, Va. One of them demanded, "Who is this woman you're sleeping with?" Mildred Loving said, "I'm his wife." Her husband, a bricklayer, pointed to their marriage certificate on the wall. "That's no good here," came the reply. Because Richard was white, and Mildred was part black and part Native American, their union was illegal in Virginia. They challenged the law as unconstitutional, though, and nine years later, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed." -The Week May 16, 2008

What separates her fight for other civil rights from others is that it was not really a fight for civil rights at all. Mildred never considered herself a racial pioneer, or a hero, she just fell in love. As she states in an address she gave back in June 12th, 2007:

 "When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?" 

In a time where divorce rates for first marriages hover around %50, and overt sexuality controls our media and mindset it was refreshing to read about a man and woman who believed so heavily in love and their love for one another that they took it to the highest court in the Nation. Of course the racial and civil right implications were huge, and life-changing for the entire country, but what stuck out more for me was the humbling tone of Mildred. It wasn't a politically driven fight, it was a woman and man believing that love should be the highest form of power, not the government. 

I'm recently working with a lesbian (well, a few lesbians). One of them recently brought her girlfriend to work, and introduced all of us to her. As experienced as I am, love is still a convoluted and mysterious thing that sometimes makes no sense at all, often tearing at my heart or sending me down twisting alleyways with no end. But when I saw those two I was sure of what I saw: it was true love. The kind of love you you thought you had as a child before you learned to kiss, where holding hands for hours was just perfect. The kind heard in the vibrations of Otis Redding's voice as he trembles out "Come to me." The kind where you could swear among that in the middle of that busy Venice boardwalk they were the only ones standing there. They are engaged and to be married soon, but in Canada, not in America. 

When the court overturned the Virginia's law against interracial marriages the judge stated: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival... Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." Of course race is the issue here, and not sexual orientation so this ruling cannot directly be used towards an argument of same-sex-marriage in a supreme court today. But why not? 

Mildred and Richard Loving originally only wanted to be married. They wanted the love they possessed for each other to be recognized by the state. And shouldn't that be what marriage is about? I understand that marriage puts one under a certain obligation fiscally, fidelity-wise, and so on and so forth, but are we looking to far into it? In the days of prenuptial agreements, marrying for visas (which I just heard being called "marriedish"), marrying due to accidental pregnancy,  binge vegas marriages, gold diggers, and "power marriages" I think the entire institution is under attack at this point. Give marriage back to people who will cherish it and appreciate it. Not to say there won't be any same-sex couples who take advantage of the right, but there are so many out there who love just as deeply as Mildred and Richard yet are being neglected the right to marry who they chose to be their life partner. Marriage should be about the the devotion that the two parties are pledging towards each other, not about racial or religious prejudice. 

At the end of her life Mildred's biggest accomplishment was that she could choose the person that she loved as her life-partner, not that she enabled a black and a white person to marry. As she said herself, "I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment,  the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life."