Read the entire article that goes with the above video here:  LINK

These students had to organize this racially integrated prom on their own.  After racial integration of the schools was required by law, proms were halted altogether because when the school tried having racially integrated proms, few to no people went because white parents did not want their kids socializing with black kids.  By law, however, the schools could hardly discriminate by holding one prom for black students and another for white students.  Nor would that be economically feasible. 

So proms were replaced by private parties, which were either for white students only, or for black students only.  They justified it in their minds by calling it tradition.

A disabled man from Centerville, Iowa mentions to his physical therapist that he feels security at his granddaughter's school is lacking, and he thinks someone could get in and hurt the kids.  The physical therapist reports it to police. Law Enforcment overreacts by immediately making an arrest and charging him for  making a felony threat of terrorism, instead of just talking to the man and checking out his criminal history (none) to find out what his intent was. Watch the video interview with the guy, at the jail. He's clearly terrified that this is going to ruin his life.

The wonderful media then compounds it by telling exactly where this happened, and pointing out the exact school where the man was worried security is lax. That's not irresponsible, or putting the kids in danger, at all, is it?

Read the article and watch the video here:  LINK

In the video below, Mark Shields on PBS’s Inside Washington Friday made a comment that perfectly defines how liberal media elites view the financial success of anyone other than themselves and their ilk.  Don't think he's just talking, either.  Liberal politicians are trying to find any way they can to take your wealth to use as they see fit.

The hot topic these days is Gay Marriage.  We are told that same-sex weddings should be valid.  Everyone should have an equal right to marry, after all.  To say otherwise is prejudicial and discriminatory, and cannot be tolerated.   Okay.  Let's recognize gay marriage.

What about Common-law Marriage?  Some couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, live together without benefit of any State-sanctioned Marriage.  Marriage, they hold, consists of nothing more than a piece of paper, anyway.  Who needs that?  They are committed to each other by love.  Okay, this is another great form of Family!!!

Let's talk about Polygamy.  Polygamists truly believe that having more than one spouse at a time is acceptable, even desirable.  Subcategories are Polygyny, in which a man has multiple wives, and  Polyandry, which is the opposite, an arrangement in which a woman has more than one husband.  Polygamy, by the way, is not necessarily limited to three adult partners.  A natural variant of these would be a Group Marriage with more than three adult partners, regardless of their sex.  Such an arrangement means that there are more adults to provide loving care for the children, lessening the demand on any one of the adults.  Also, more than one adult, perhaps even all of the adults, can work outside the home, providing income to support the family.  This would surely provide a higher standard of living.  Sounds great; let's allow these types of family, too. 

Now, let's ask a few questions.

How many people are allowed to be legally recognized in an arrangement like this?

Who does an employer have to provide insurance for?

In two-person arrangements with no State-Sanctioned Marriage Ceremony, are they entitled to employer-provided benefits equal to Legally Married couples?

How long does a couple have to live together to qualify as a Common-Law Marriage?

How does inheritance of property work?

If the Family includes more than two adults:

How does it affect the legal status of the arrangement if one or more people decide they want out of the arrangement, maybe taking children with them? 

How are employer-provided benefits affected?

Foster Care & Adoption of children must also be looked at.  Should multiple-adult-partner families be allowed to take in foster children, or to adopt children?  When multiple-partner families split up, who gets custody of which children?

Now, since one aspect of Family Law is making sure all children born are cared for, let's tackle Age of Consent:

At what age should a person be allowed to enter into a relationship that will be legally recognized as equal to Marriage?

Is a person who is physically capable of reproduction entitled to have consensual sex, and therefore entitled to marry, or enter into a legally equivalent relationship?

At what age are people allowed to consent to have sex?

Should there be a limit on the age of the partner that one consents to have sex with?  If so, what is a legally acceptable age difference?

If "underage" people do have sex, and produce children, who is obligated to care for those children?

What do you think about alternative family structures?  Which ones should be legally recognized as equal?  Where should we draw the boundaries?

Finally:  Should these laws be established by States or by the Federal Government?  Think about moving from one State to another, and finding your Family is no longer legally recognized.

NOTE:  Traditionally, in the United States, a marriage has been between one man and one woman.  By changing the definition of family that is accepted by Society and recognized by law, we are opening what one commenter referred to as a "Pandora's Box" of legal questions.  All points raised in this post WILL have to be addressed in the legislature and in the court system once we change that definition.  If you do a response post, please mention and include a link to my post, and user-tag me so I can read it.

It was 1983.  I was in Orlando, Florida.  One day, I wanted to see a boxing match on TV, so instead of doing any touristy things, I went for a walk.  Maybe it was a high crime area or something, because a lot of dogs came out to the lot line barking as I passed.  One, a boxer-type, kept following me, though. It would jump at me again and again, and I had to keep backing up and circling to keep it from getting behind me.  A little girl of about two or three, wearing a diaper, followed saying, "Please don't hurt my doggy."  I told her I didn't want to, but I was looking for stick or anything to fight the damn thing off.  There was nothing.  After what might have been a half mile, the girl looked at me and said, "Hit him.  You hit him".  I kicked that dog square in the face, which finally made him retreat. The little girl followed him home.  My adrenaline was up, though.  I stood there growling and staring after them for at least a minute.  It's probably a good thing there were no department stores in that area, because I would have gotten a knife and gone back to kill the vicious animal.