DOMA is dead spaketh the Supreme Court.
Conservative efforts to do things have a way of backfiring – rather than leaving things vague, the attempt to bring clarity to the law just lobs up a softball for judges to hit out of the park.
Defense Of Marriage Act was a Federal power grab to try to Federalize the rules for a legal marriage, something that has always been a state function, with different rules about age on consent, parental permission for minors, who is excluded from marrying (close relatives, etc)
DOMA was pushed through to establish a federal definition that marriage is between one man and one woman. Without DOMA, legal battles would have gone on in 50 states, and attempts to impose gay marriage in Federal courts would have largely been dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Introduce DOMA, and now federal courts can get involved, and just decided that gay marriage can’t be treated differently than other types of marriages.
Why is the Federal government involved? Because historically it was deemed that protecting couples involved in raising children was an important public policy – like providing social security payments to the widow of a man who dies, not to provide checks to a gay man who “marries” an HIV patient a week before he dies.
Look for the law in general, and businesses to now stop giving benefits and protections to spouses.
Should people that are married be subsidized by taxpayers that are not? I personally don’t think that is Constitutional to discriminate against citizens that might already be unlucky in love.
When one member in a marriage dies, their property passes to the other party without paying estate taxes. Is that a subsidy?
That’s the question. Why should it be different than passing it to you son/daughter, to your parents, or to a charity?
Don’t get me wrong, I am ok with no inheritance tax for say a million dollars, but after seeing how the Fed prints money for the “haves” and causes higher prices for the “have nots”, I have flip-floped on my position on the inheritance tax and think we need it to prevent multi-generational dynasties of the political class.
anyone else getting this error today from SRG ?
“SQL error detected – most errors are temporary, like when we are in the middle of updating a database. Please press Back on your browser and try again in a few seconds”
Art has been down today .
Over.
Parrott
Hi. This is the NSA. You have been warned.
I’m seeing that error in my logs sporadically and I’m not sure why.
The essence of it is that when a new user shows up (meaning they don’t have a browser cookie and their IP address is new), I assign a session id and push that to your browser as a cookie, so I remember you later – since I don’t require an account for most things (like voting in a poll or setting your time zone preference), the sessionid is important – but it gets to another place and where it is required that you have a session Id, you don’t and it throws the error you see.
The thing I changed today was passwords for the scripts that run the web site – but the errors are not happening there. Since I’m not experiencing the error, it may be tricky to track down – but I guess I need to get on it
Hmmm, But I’m a old timer here : )
I guess firefox cleared the cookies when I closed it yesterday. let me know if you need me to test anything, I volunteer CC too, LOL
Parrott
With the annual fees we pay on this web site, you’d thing we wouldn’t have to volunteer, Parrott. 😉
if you would like, I’ll gladly refund your fee.
That may answer the “why” part of your email to me the other day 🙂
if you’re around, it would be much easier if we were in direct contact so I could say “Now try this!”. I’m not even sure what I have at this point – perhaps Yahoo Chat still works, or maybe Google Chat.
I changed one thing that might have fixed it. Try it again and let me know if that fixed it.
That brings up another question, where is the chat room for his site? lol
Seriously, I’d be happy to help find a bug. I sometimes email Art to notify him when the site is down and had suggested he add a donate button so that people can help to cover his costs of running the site.
at various times, I think I had a chat room, and played with twitter and facebook, but nobody says Hi, so I lost interest.
If you’re on Google, I should show online as streamingradioguide@gmail. [you know the rest]
FWIT- I think legacy AOL chatters can reach you too, Art. It is my understanding that AOL chat is integrated with Google chat. … just my opinion, but that seems a bit like integrating a telegraph with a remote control. 😉
Awesome, you fixed it! works like a champ.
Must have been the NSA monkey-ing around and messed something up.
Cool.
Now I have to leave and go to Mordor (Northern Virginia) for work.
Dislike. ( I dropped ‘hate’ since Art didn’t that word)
I’ll try to check in late tonight
Parrott
I’m pretty sure I still have a legacy aol account from when they made them free to inflate their subscriber counts. I was artstone@aol.com if you happen to dig through the alt.aol-sucks usenet archive – someone eventually took the name, so any artstone@aol.com after 1996 isn’t me.
This is ALL part of the Plan, more on that, much, much later.
DOMA passed both Houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities from both the Democrats and Republicans. Even the bigoted, racist, narcissistic, mentally ill, child sex abuser, Bill ‘da Sexual Predator’ Clinton signed the legislation into law, and was very happy to do so.
SCOTUS’s vote did not declare what they voted for is a Constitutional right. Hmmmmmmmmm….gotta be a clue in there somewhere, and that could mean a rather large ‘hole’ in the law was formed. So, filling-in the void on that subject could be the next move on their agenda.
Some of you may be asking questions regarding “How does this affect taxation of Estates?”, “How does this ruling affect benefits, insurance coverage, or whatever of my ‘spouse’, while others may be musing, “Let’s tax the hell out of those rich folks who want to pass on their wealth to the kids.” This sort of ruling causes all sorts of “Un-Intended Consequences”
So, let the mischief begin.
Let us imagine that Tom and Mary are a traditional husband and wife duo with two children. They are fairly hip parents. They raised their kids in a loving home. They formed a bond, and a family connection with their children in the traditional sense.
Let us imagine one or both of the parents are concerned with the upcoming, onerous inheritance taxes on their estate and in order to abide by the ‘new’ way of thinking decide on an friendly ‘divorce’. So, they accomplish that objective in order for each to ‘marry’ one of their children. Tom could marry his son and Mary could marry her daughter, or vice-versa, doesn’t really matter now does it?
Hells Bells, they should not be forced to even divorce these days. They should be allowed to form Multi-Unions. Sure the children could already be married to someone else, you know, in a typical traditional marriage, but that is no problem since everyone is hip, cool and up-to-speed in the new social mores and what is to keep a threesome, foursome, even a cross-species marriage from being formed? Don’t you love your dog, cat, horse or donkey? Only the bigots, homo-phobic haters would object to those unions.
All sorts of imaginative schemes will pop-up out of this new way of thinking, because we got to keep those lower life forms known as ‘lawyers’ on their toes with plenty of work paying some really high fees to sort through the confusion.
Oh, yeah! I just love these new social mores.
Let’s come up with another idea – you have a 60 year old gay man who has HIV and knows death is imminent. He marries his 25 year old sex slave. When he dies, the estate passes tax free to the young gay man. In another 30 years, repeat.
Allow farmers to marry their grandson, skipping two geneerations.
of course, all of this would have been unimportant if the estate tax had stayed dead.
As Drudge points out, there are other benefits to being married. If a US citizen wants to marry a non-citizen, that spouse can come to live in the US as a permanent resident and on the fast track to US citizenship as long as the State Department doesn’t think the purpose of the marriage is a sham to avoid the immigration laws (bwahaha)
Another perk of marriage is the exemption from being compelled to testify against your spouse in a criminal trial. Two men planning a crime spree? “Marry” each other first. A few details from my prior research – this protection exists only if the person being asked to testify wants to invoke it. The object of the criminal trial doesn’t have a say. The marriage must have been in place prior to the criminal act- you can’t marry “after the fact”.
What happens the still used concept of “Common law marriages”? If a couple lives together than presents themselves to others as being married, they become married in the eyes of the law, even if they were never legally married. Here is the offiical rule from Colorado, for instance:
“A common law marriage can be defined as a marriage not otherwise prohibited by law between a man and a woman who are at least eighteen years old that is not based upon a license, ceremony, or any other legal formality but upon the couple’s agreement to have a marital relationship. Most states recognizing common law marriage require that the couple intend to have a marital relationship, live together, and have a reputation of being husband and wife.”
In a gay marriage who is the wife? Is there a presumption of parental custody in a lesbian divorce over who gets control over the sperm donor children? Is a lesbian who beats up her lesbian wife guilty of violation the violence against women act? If a member of a gay marriage has sex outside of the marriage, is that the crime of adultry? Is a marriage valid if there is no sexual relationship?
Be careful what you ask for. I really doubt that many gay people actually want marriage – they just think that by destroying traditional marriage, it will increase acceptance of their choice of life partners (until they go to the club saturday night and have a NO2 party and have sex with other random people).
can a person be married to both a woman and a man at the same time? If not, why not?
Is either the woman or man married to an RC Roach?
I have no first hand knowledge, but I hear it is quite popular today for women to have sex with their male dogs. No socks to pick up. It’s a little dangerous though as the dog won’t release until he’s finished the job. If you’ve ever seen dogs mate, you’ll get the idea. It doesn’t work quite the way you might think it does.
So next time you’re walking around and you see a pretty woman walking a large breed male dog, go up and ask her “have you ever thought about having sex with your dog?” – it’s a great conversation starter
Now this is hot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uCdjGSXiiw
Maybe Obamacare can include that as a question in its application process on the online heal exchanges.
BTW- I hear size doesn’t matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/nyregion/leona-helmsleys-millionaire-dog-trouble-is-dead.html?_r=0
You missed the attractive part of my hypothetical
That Arizona heat is a dry heat. This is a moist heat.. the location of one possibility for Snowden’s new home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7vwBoiZea0
Sounds like that 60 year old and his 25 year old sex slave are from planet Notax. Have you seen the IRS-funded video?
No I haven’t!
Regarding the social security survivor benefits, I remember looking at the angle – all that matters is you were married on the date of death. That’s why women want to marry men on death row before their execution. It doesn’t matter if he is the father of the children, as long as he provided “support” for 12 months before the date of death. There are exceptions if the woman claims to be disabled or has children that are disabled. Curiously, if the woman is an ex-wife, there are tests about how long ago the divorce was and how long they were married before she gets a check too.
If a hetero couple get divorced, and the woman gets alimnoy, does that end if she marries a lesbian? What about a man receiving spousal support from his rich wife if he marries a man? Does bigomy apply to gay marriages?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/26/irs_spends_60000_on_star_trek-themed_training_video.html
Like Phil Hendrie once said “Obama is trying to shove his gay lifestyle down our throats.”
I wish talk show hosts would stop using that cliche. I have had it with the lesbian lifestyle up the wazoo!
Oh, Gawd the ruling today is so incredibly rich, vibrant and exhilarating, all at the same time.
I have a lady neighbor with a large dog, think ‘large’ breed. She loves that dog and has expressed feelings towards it that are indescribable, except to say “It’s the best ‘sex’ I’ve ever had, and was as close to Religious experience as I’ve ever had.”
Given her blessed, almost religious experience one could say it would take a bigot to deny her continued relations with that dog. Is that not what the learned Supreme Court justices were attempting to communicate?
That goes without saying!
Men and goats though may still be off limits though, unless that’s part of their official religious belief system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uCdjGSXiiw
More directly related to this comment 😉
JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs give their hearty approval
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-26/dimon-joins-goldman-sachs-praising-supreme-court-on-gay-marriage.html
Art – You seem fired up about this ruling and I know many others are as fired up. To me, it makes no more difference than a TV network cancelling another series that I never watch.
I think we’d be better served preventing cranky, disagreeable and dishonest money grubbers from getting married…. maybe even people that leave their socks on the floor.
How about this as a discussion point – should illegal aliens be allowed to marry or have their marriages recognized?
Actually, that’s a real point but in the opposite direction. By international agreement, countries must accept each others marriages, even if they aren’t legal. So let’s say two men from Iran (where there are no gay people!) come to Las Vegas and get married – now Iran is obligated to honor that marriage legally (just taking the state vs US issue one step higher). Of course, that’s never going to happen since they’ll be stoned to death – immediate claim of political refugee status!
I’d be curious how the US Federal government treated gay marriages of US citizens that got married so same sex spouse in Canada…. did they treat it differently than if they got married in a state where it was legal?
To me, this brings up “sales tax” issues. They had been sales taxes but after the internet, states with them wanted to treat them as “purchase taxes” and tax the purchaser rather then the seller.
Go to NY buy a dinner and tell the vendor you won’t pay the “sales” tax because you are from out of state and not actually use the calories until you cross over back to CT/NY and mayor Mike’s thugs will be all over you like your name is Alex Jones.
It is not who pays the tax, but who has to send it to the state. The rule based on prior SCOTUS rulings is that if the business and the buyer are in different states (aka interstate commerce), the state where the person lives has no obligation to collect the taxes for another state. Most states have had an almost never enforced “use” tax for all purchases of good from out of state. Usually it is ignored unless it’s a large purchase like a car or boat where there is a secondary enforcement mechanism.
Once Neal Boortz gets his Federal Government 15% sales tax, it’s all over. Once the system and the enforcement System is in place, anytime the government wants to raise their pensions, it’s just a matter of changing the rate. In the end, we are all just sharecroppers living temporarily on the government’s land. The idea that we actually own anything is just a fiction created to motivateus to pick the cotton faster for the Master.
Ever wonder why private employers are required to use the government’s e-Verify before being able to legally hire someone, but government workers at the voting stations and welfare offices are not only not required to use it, they are prohibited from using it?