Re: Yogananda's -- KRIYA YOGA DISCUSSION BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:09
Author: Mike Drake - 1 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Yogananda's
In reply to: Mukund - 6 Jun 2001 's message, "Re: Yogananda's" on 14:07

For the reasons stated above ("Response to Ketch"), I doubt Yogananda was referring to any California law, and I think the issue is a red herring. Nonetheless, I looked the law up.

At the time of the ouster, California's miscegenation statute Civil Code section 69 provided that �no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.� (As such, any such marriage was legally void. Civil Code Section 60.)

If the law was applicable to Chowdhury's marriage, why did California issue a marriage license? The answer is deceptively simple: Section 60 does not include 'Indians' or 'Hindus'! See Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 22 (CAL. 1948).

In short, the law did not apply to Chowdhury.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]