to use the knowledge you have.  Knowledge depends on reason

and logic the decide what is good or bad, whereas wisdom is

the ability to discern true right and wrong.  Knowledge is the

understanding to be able to do something, right or wrong. 

Wisdom is knowing when to use the knowledge you posses. 

Knowledge is knowing your limits and shortcomings, wisdom is

understanding them. 

Knowledgeable people depend on their knowledge and physical

ability to go through life.  Wise people depend on God.

How does it affect a woman's identity when she chooses to take her husband's last name, keep her own maiden name, or hyphenate the two names?  To be able to determine whether a woman's identity would be affected, one must know what identity means.  According to Webster's dictionary, identity has three key definitions. 

                The first definition is: "The quality or condition of being the same as something else."  If you think about this for a minute, you realize that a woman's identity before marriage could be classified as having the quality of being the same as her family.  She shares their last name and their heritage.  Although her heritage would not change if she were to take her husbands last name, her own last name would be dropped.  Therefore, she would not have that parallel between herself and her family.  The sameness with her family (i.e. their name) has thus been loss.  However, if she were to hyphenate her birth surname and her husbands surname, she has a new identity with her husband while retaining the identity she has with her family.

                The second definition is: "The distinguishing character or personality of an individual."  A persons character is "the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and individualizing a person."  A persons personality is "the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual."  These are, for the most part, unchanging, or change slowly over the course of time.  If a woman is strong, dependable, caring, and energetic before marriage, she will (most likely) stay that way after marriage.  This being the case, her identity in this area would not change if she were to take her husbands last name or to hyphenate the two names.  This type of identity cannot change simply by changing ones name.  If the woman is a strong person, she will be a strong person after her surname changes.  If the woman is a weak person who defines her entire being by the name she keeps rather than her qualities and strengths, then she will be a weak person after marriage.  However, although her character identity will not change if she takes her husbands name, she will more than likely have a feeling of loss while she tries to re-organize her life around her new name.

                The third and final key definition is: "Psychological orientation of the self in regard to something (such as a person, group, or name) with a resulting feeling of emotional association."  You will remember the example above of the weak charactered woman who had a difficult time with changing her name.  This is similar to the psychological identity; however, a woman is not weak of character when she has a psychological identity.  Psychological identities are common and completely normal.  Many women love their last names and do not wish to change them.  This does not mean that she loves her husband any less, but simply loves her name as well.  If a woman truly wants to keep her birth surname, she has three options.  She may either simply keep her own last name while her husband keeps his, she may hyphenate her last name with her husband's, or she may keep her last name while her husband also takes her last name.  This last option is rare, but has been known to happen.  A woman, who feels a strong psychological identity with her family's last name, may feel that a small part of her is lost when she takes her husband's last name.

                In conclusion, whether changing a woman's surname changes her identity depends on several factors: which type of identity is being referred to, her character, her personality, and her emotional ties to her name.  Although the controversy over whether a woman should change her name when she marries is often heated, it really depends on the woman.  Many women feel that changing her name robs her of her identity while others feel that it allows her to start a fresh and wonderful adventure with her new husband.  Whether to change a last name is an issue that really must be settled on a case-by-case basis.  However, whichever option the woman chooses to change her name, hyphenate it, or keep it in most cases, both the woman and her husband are happy with their choice.

The topic of non-citizen immigrant voting rights is a heated debate.  Some, like Councilor James Braude, say,  "This is a classic case of taxation without representation,"  but is this really the case?  Should a non-citizen immigrant have the right to vote, and should all non-citizens have an equal right to vote?  What about illegal immigrants, should they be allowed to vote as well?  Would allowing non-citizens to vote, help or hinder the nation?  And, if it were to hinder the nation, is this knowledge alone a strong enough argument to permanently ban non-citizen voting?

Many believe that although non-citizen immigrants behave much in the same ways as citizens, they possess fewer rights and benefits.  Immigrants are subject to all laws and pay taxes, work in and/or own businesses, send their children to schools, serve in the military, and participate in all aspects of daily social life.  Nevertheless, non-citizens are precluded from selecting those who fashion public policy and represent them at every level of governance.  Still others believe that non-citizen immigrants have the privilege of living in America and, therefore, have some of the responsibilities that come along with that, such as paying taxes and obeying the laws.  They also believe that voting is a privilege that does, and should come only with citizenship.

The Cambridge City Council is considering a resolution that would allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.  Not only would non-citizens be able to vote, but illegal aliens as well.  One non-citizen complaint is that acquiring citizenship is too difficult.  Many supporters of the resolution claim it is an issue of parents participation in the education of their children.  "All parents should feel entitled to come forward, and the School Committee should feel accountable for them", says the campaigns coordinator.  Supporters believe that, since non-citizens pay state and federal taxes, this is taxation without representation.  In addition, because these non-citizens must pay state and federal taxes, they should have the right to vote in state and federal elections.  They also claim that they must pay taxes without any right to help choose how their taxes are spent. 

Those who oppose the law, state that immigration is a matter of choice.  In addition, when they come to America, the great majority of immigrants become hard-working and law-abiding contributors to the society they have chosen.  This country's greatness depends, partly, on nearly four centuries in which it has been open to the peoples of the world.  That we are a nation of immigrants is one of our glories.  However, the millions of immigrants who built America did not do so as long-term visitors, but as people who signaled their commitment by becoming citizens as soon as they could, and by accepting as binding the terms on which they entered the country.  Immigrants of the past would not have demanded that the laws be changed to give them the right to vote just because of the time it took to earn citizenship.  Since resident aliens with permanent residence have every right of a citizen except the vote, a proposal to give the vote to aliens, is in essence, a proposal to make them citizens.  Only, it would do this via a shortcut, waiving all of the requirements customarily expected of those wishing to be naturalized, including even the intent to become a citizen. 

In conclusion, a look at recent history shows that citizenship has been the ultimate goal of most immigrants.  Millions of black Americans were effectively denied citizenship by a systematic, quasi-legal denial of the vote.  Their right to US passports was unimportant compared to their lack of the right to vote.  It is because the right to vote implies citizenship that 47 states, to varying degrees, deny the vote to felons because they have breached the elemental responsibilities of citizens.  Conferring voting rights on non-citizens, will dilute the very concept of citizenship and remove a principal motivation for permanent residents to become citizens.  The last thing to consider is the millions of immigrants that have gone through the entire process to become citizens.  Allowing non-citizens to vote would make their effort and time a worthless gesture, and would be a travesty beyond the lack of voting rights for those will not become citizens.