Research

common-law marriage
n. an agreement between a man and woman to live together as husband and wife without any legal formalities, followed and/or preceded by cohabitation on a regular basis (usually for seven years). Common-law marriage is legal in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, thereby recognizing a marriage for purposes of giving the other party the rights of a spouse, including inheritance or employee benefits. Such informal partnerships are recognized by some local governments for purposes of the rights of a spouse under employment contracts and pension rights even where the state does not recognize this as a marriage.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=249&bold=||||

cohabitation
n. living together in the same residence, generally either as husband and wife or for an extended period of time as if the parties were married. Cohabitation implies that the parties are having sexual intercourse while living together, but the definition would not apply to a casual sexual encounter. Legal disputes have arisen as to whether cohabitation would refer to same sex partners, which is important to those involved since "cohabitation" is the basis of certain rights and privileges under various laws, regulations and contracts. The findings of the courts vary on this question, but the trend is to include long-standing homosexual relationships as cohabitation.

Prenuptial Agreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement

A prenuptial agreement or antenuptial agreement, commonly abbreviated to prenup or prenupt, is a contract entered into by two people prior to marriage or civil union. The content of a prenuptial agreement can vary widely, but commonly includes provisions for the division of property should the couple divorce and any rights to spousal support during or after the dissolution of marriage.

Prenuptial agreements are a matter of civil law, so Catholic canon law does not rule them out in principle (for example, to determine how property would be divided among the children of a prior marriage upon the death of one spouse).

In practice, prenuptials may run afoul of Church law in a number of ways. For example, they cannot subject a marriage to a condition concerning the future (such as an agreement about the dividing of assets in case of divorce). The Code of Canon Law provides: "A marriage subject to a condition about the future cannot be contracted validly." (CIC 1102)

The Canon Law: Letter and Spirit, a commentary on canon law, explains that condition may be defined as "a stipulation by which an agreement is made contingent upon the verification or fulfillment of some circumstance or event that is not yet certain." It goes on to state that "any condition concerning the future attached to matrimonial consent renders marriage invalid." For example, a marriage would be invalid if the parties stipulated that they must have children or they have the right to divorce and remarry someone else.

Everything you need to know about prenuptial agreements : http://www.bankrate.com/brm/prenup.asp
By Bankrate.com

Nothing can kill romance faster than the word prenup. But with about one in three of all first marriages ending in divorce, and 50 percent of second or third ones hitting the skids, a prenup is smart financial planning, legal and financial experts say.

"Think of it as a business arrangement or as an insurance policy to help remove some of the emotion that's naturally involved," says Nancy Dunnan, a New York City financial adviser and author. "Marriage is not just an emotional and physical union -- it's also a financial union. A prenup and the discussions that go with it can help ensure the financial well-being of the marriage."

Essay Question:

Are the changes that took place in the slave trade and in pro black movements a result of humans searching for equality or are they the result of economic factors and the fear of decision making individuals losing their position?

Margaret Kantz

Top Three Annotations... where am i supposed to start? The irony in writing comments about a paper about looking further into sources and not taking what you read for the words written on the page is overwhelming.

1. The interesting aspect of taking a source and not only looking at what the source is saying but to really put yourself in the shoes of the write is something very important.
   
2. Strong bias gives explanation to many of the facts that "just don't match up" this whole text really pushes me to contemplate if there are true facts beyond scientifically proven numbers such as pi.
3. I enjoyed the part where Kantz was not hesitant to pass some of the blame on to the teachers. All to often it seems that Professors get a class of students that fail miserably at something and the professor passes it off as "they" did not do the work well enough.
   

Interesting piece. Should i believe it... parts of it perhaps. Everyone has a bias.

the end.

The end of books for me always makes me step back and take a second to try and realize what the author through this book is really trying to say. I know cliché in many ways but authors have so many prejudices that they bring out through their texts and I find that most interesting. What causes someone to put this much of them on paper for something that in the minds of many is still not over? Is it the fact that slavery exists but is hidden that angers him or perhaps it is the fact the he wished he could have been a part of the spark that started the fire.

For me it is more important to find where his prejudices lie. Are they with society and the means in which are taken to inflict change or is it with religion and the hierarchal structure of the church and the beliefs of those that take part in the religion, specifically Christianity. Perhaps it is the clashing between races that perpetuates itself despite intervention.

Through his long verse and moments where the reader starts to ponder if the end is at sight he exposes the true idea that change will always occur, however it does not come freely nor overnight. This idea of inevitable change is due to the fact that there will always be the few in society looking out for the whole who will fuel the fire underneath those who can make a difference.

18-21

It is only to be expected that eventually the slaves would turn things around and a revolt would be spurred. Can you really be surprised at the grotesque nature of the revolt, I cannot. In comparison to the amount of oppression and hatred that had funneled through society negatively towards them it is not at all surprising that the events transpired in this fashion. Is it possible to really consider how else an extremely oppressed society would react when given the opportunity? There is so much hatred, anger and disgust. I can only imagine for those involved with the revolt that it was as if they were returning the white man’s favor.

In some sense I feel like a broken record but economics rules. If it does not have an economic implication then it might just as well not exist. I am not surprised by the effects of the revolt on society.

Chapter 15-17

What happened to the author? Chapter 15 shed new light on a lot of topics that i had only thrown around in my head. It was nice to see that this book took a turn that i expected it to for once so that i could follow the story line a bit closer and put objects together that i had not previously connected. This explanation about how these events came to be is the perfect linking pin.
Chapter 16 really points out the fact that money trumps. It is tough to overcome such oppression when your opponent has deeper pockets than you. Those who were for slavery could publish and get their message out there easily because they could always pay for it. While this tactic is not long sighted it works well initially. "Keep cool and say little" interesting ending i feel.

Chapter 17. Government. Interesting how it can oppress how their people think and take part of their daily lives. It makes you appreciate the freedoms that you have and it makes you look at those that feel we are oppressed and tilt your head in hopes of understanding them further. The concept that a meeting pace was shut down because they have liberal and radical ideas is a bit to extreme for me even as someone with a conservative bias.

Mr. Brookhiser ... wow

I find myself questioning the point of the article by Richard Brookhiser from Boston.com more than the point he made to personally jab Hochschild. The article starts with the first page rambling enough to give the reader information about the book and then in the second to last paragraph, he explodes and everything he has build up about the book comes out in 50 words.

This style of writing I find highly ineffective. However, in looking past this and on to the point that he is attempting to make in this article I am also confronted with a conflict as I do feel that Hochschild takes every opportunity to jab at the Christian way of life. While I feel it is a good point to bring out that he is a biased author comparing his ideas and style to a color-blind art critic is a bit out there. It is a logical progression to make due to the style of the book as well as the constant talk of Christianity, however there are a variety of reason that this deliberate choice to bring religion into the writing was made. These reasons include but are not limited to: give the characters more depth, enhance the story line, provide insight into the time period.

A more purposeful attempt on Hochschild side would have to be made to convince myself as a reader of the book that he has a negative bias towards the religion. I agree that much of this book needs to be read subjectively, the reader needs to actively read between the words to find the books inner truth.