Well, the problem is that the patchwork of state laws on this subject will cause serious problems. The first time that a soldier's partner sues the DoD for depriving her of health benefits by sending her wife to a base in South Carolina will be a very important case.
Well, the problem is that the patchwork of state laws on this subject will cause serious problems. The first time that a soldier's partner sues the DoD for depriving her of health benefits by sending her wife to a base in South Carolina will be a very important case.
I would guess that the DoD would use residency to determine such things. For example, while I was in the military I was stationed in Washington state, but retained my residency in Minnesota, because it was the state I was born in. I voted in Minnesota, paid taxes, maintained my driver's license, kept my car registration, etc.
The MSRRA (Military Spouse Residency Relief Act) allows the spouse to either choose their physical residency, or the service member's.
I'm guessing forms like the 1070/602 will need to add a line for "place of marriage".
Happiness and equality, dude. Happiness and equality.Weird how those go together... what are you PUTTING in that stuff....Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Phbbt, we got gay marriage AND legal pot waaaay before they did. ;-)
Ahhh its a hybrid then....
Well, the problem is that the patchwork of state laws on this subject will cause serious problems. The first time that a soldier's partner sues the DoD for depriving her of health benefits by sending her wife to a base in South Carolina will be a very important case.I would guess that the DoD would use residency to determine such things. For example, while I was in the military I was stationed in Washington state, but retained my residency in Minnesota, because it was the state I was born in. I voted in Minnesota, paid taxes, maintained my driver's license, kept my car registration, etc.
The problem is that none of those -- voting, state taxes, driving, car registration -- are actually federal issues, so the DoD didn't have a voice in that decision.
The MSRRA (Military Spouse Residency Relief Act) allows the spouse to either choose their physical residency, or the service member's.
This, however, is heartening. I will have to do some reading.
And it does open a new can of worms -- at least, new to me. How will couples with different residency be handled? I know a lot of (het) couples where he lives in a different city than she does, usually for professional reasons (e.g. he's a professor at U.TX, while she's a lawyer in LA).
Perish the thought. I believe with all my heart and soul that every politician in Washington is there solely to further the benefit and welfare of the American people as a whole, free of any thought of self-service or outside agenda.
Is this just generic cynicism towards politicians? Or is there a specific response you have a problem with?
Wait... Haven't you replaced your heart with an implant taken from a demon and payed for it with your soul?
The MSRRA (Military Spouse Residency Relief Act) allows the spouse to either choose their physical residency, or the service member's.This, however, is heartening. I will have to do some reading.
And it does open a new can of worms -- at least, new to me. How will couples with different residency be handled? I know a lot of (het) couples where he lives in a different city than she does, usually for professional reasons (e.g. he's a professor at U.TX, while she's a lawyer in LA).
Could this lead to widespread move among married homosexual military members to states that recognize homosexual marriage - since they will have extra incentive to do so over civilian homosexual couples?
(okay, maybe 100 people, but I was interviewed by Channel 9 wearing my Mao cap)
*digs up the clip*
Hah, nice hair!
(okay, maybe 100 people, but I was interviewed by Channel 9 wearing my Mao cap)*digs up the clip*
Hah, nice hair!
Can you link it?
[
I'm not sure it matters from the federal point of view where the couple lives. If they're legally married they should be treated so by the federal government, even if the state government doesn't recognize it.
Unfortunately, the Federal government defers to state governments about marriage, and different agencies have different standards. The IRS, for examples, says that you're married if the state you live in says you're married. Immigration says you're married if the state you celebrated your marriage in says you're married.
To regularize this will involve congressional action.
I suspect that this will lead to challenges over the other articles in DOMA that were not overturned and probably have the supreme court ruling on it in ~10 years, like you said.
Liar!
I shaved my head back then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally, I would agree. In this case:
I realized that I was, you know, over 60 years old. I grew up in a different time. And I was hung up about the word. And I had all these gay friends. I had all these gay couple friends. And I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.Source
I don't have any particular insight into the mind of Bill Clinton, Stooge of the Plutocracy, but my hetero life partner did make me watch a pretty awesome 4-part BBC documentary called The Century of the Self.
It's pretty awesome all around, but, towards the end, it goes into how, after the Republican onslaught in 1994, Clinton hired Dick Morris to basically do market research on what conservative "middle-class" (white) Americans wanted and pander to them. Although I don't recall DOMA being mentioned specifically, I see no reason to believe Slick Willie on, uh, anything really.
It's around the 3 hour, 30 minute mark if anyone is interested.
I've been meaning to watch that one. I'm very skeptical of the over-arching conspiracy theory concept that spans a century, multiple countries and most likely thousands of participants. I definitely think there are people and groups who use the concepts outlined for their own ends, I just don't believe in the massive US-wide or international conspiracy.
I've been meaning to watch that one. I'm very skeptical of the over-arching conspiracy theory concept that spans a century, multiple countries and most likely thousands of participants. I definitely think there are people and groups who use the concepts outlined for their own ends, I just don't believe in the massive US-wide or international conspiracy.
As SJG (Steve Jackson Games) pointed out a wee bit of time ago, the most likely scenario is a whole lot of "little c" conspiracies rather than some "big c" Conspiracy ala "Illuminati" et al.
As SJG (Steve Jackson Games) pointed out a wee bit of time ago, the most likely scenario is a whole lot of "little c" conspiracies rather than some "big c" Conspiracy ala "Illuminati" et al.
Thats what the girl scouts WANT you to think
Thats what the girl scouts WANT you to thinkAs SJG (Steve Jackson Games) pointed out a wee bit of time ago, the most likely scenario is a whole lot of "little c" conspiracies rather than some "big c" Conspiracy ala "Illuminati" et al.
Don't eat the Samoas! There's something in the coconut... ;)
Yeah, I just don't buy the concept that somehow a few powerful people have managed to shape our culture in such drastic ways that didn't happen prior to Freud and others, nor has the work in various psychological fields has drastically improved government control of people.
Where once the political process was about engaging people's rational, conscious minds, as well as facilitating their needs as a society, the documentary shows how by employing the tactics of psychoanalysis, politicians appeal to irrational, primitive impulses that have little apparent bearing on issues outside of the narrow self-interest of a consumer population.
All that's really changed is the ability for one person to reach out to more people. From what I've seen about the documentary and discussions with other people, I don't doubt it's veracity, particularly in regards to efficacy of techniques and methods. I do think that there is a lot of overblown self-importance of some of the people making some of the most overarching statements of their control over society though.
Influencing the masses is nothing new. Peter the Hermit did it in 1096.
Marketing, advertising and political rhetoric do influence the masses. I'm not disputing that, I just find too many people seem to come out with the takeaway that all the big shots in all industries + politics + military are involved in a concerted effort. The claims of influence and control are true on smaller scales, but when you look at just the US as a whole, it's too big and too many competing interests.
Even the Republicans have been dealing with internal factions and debates and they're often considered one of the most monolithic groups in the country. These aren't new groups either.
Politicians have been engaging the irrational mind for a long time before Freud showed up.
I've been meaning to watch that one. I'm very skeptical of the over-arching conspiracy theory concept that spans a century, multiple countries and most likely thousands of participants. I definitely think there are people and groups who use the concepts outlined for their own ends, I just don't believe in the massive US-wide or international conspiracy.As SJG (Steve Jackson Games) pointed out a wee bit of time ago, the most likely scenario is a whole lot of "little c" conspiracies rather than some "big c" Conspiracy ala "Illuminati" et al.
I can very much agree with that. The tobacco companies efforts are fairly well documented and I think that definitely serves to illustrate a medium sized "c".
The techniques employed aren't new, they're just being better studied and no longer require an individual to perfect them alone via trial and error.
I've been meaning to watch that one. I'm very skeptical of the over-arching conspiracy theory concept that spans a century, multiple countries and most likely thousands of participants. I definitely think there are people and groups who use the concepts outlined for their own ends, I just don't believe in the massive US-wide or international conspiracy.
I didn't watch it from the beginning but I never got the sense that it was terribly conspiracy theoried, despite that sentence you quoted.
Anyway, even if the premise is flawed, there's so much interesting shiznit in the film it's worth it. You want German communists who believed having orgasms was the key to happiness? You got it. You want a convent of nuns renouncing their vows and becoming lesbians? You got it. You want footage of how Sigmund Freud's nephew ran the propaganda campaign to justify the CIA overthrow of the Jacobo Arbenz government i Guatemala in 1954? You got it.
Chockful of interesting shiznit.
Don't eat the Samoas! There's something in the coconut... ;)Thats what the girl scouts WANT you to thinkAs SJG (Steve Jackson Games) pointed out a wee bit of time ago, the most likely scenario is a whole lot of "little c" conspiracies rather than some "big c" Conspiracy ala "Illuminati" et al.
Samoans. Duh. that ones right in the name.
|
Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?
And when Republicans and Conservatives do it, we're accused of, what is the term used... Oh yeah; Flip-flopping...
But President Obama “changes his mind” on the subject at hand, and he is praised for being "evolving and nuanced".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?And when Republicans and Conservatives do it, we're accused of, what is the term used... Oh yeah; Flip-flopping...
But President Obama “changes his mind” on the subject at hand, and he is praised for being "evolving and nuanced".
And Republicans had a field day using the term in reference to Kerry, which was when it first became a popular term to use in politics.
And currently Sarah Palin is busily attacking other members of her party (Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte) for it.
Both parties have used it with great enthusiasm; it's hardly a Democratic/liberal or Republican/conservative thing.
And when Republicans and Conservatives do it, we're accused of, what is the term used... Oh yeah; Flip-flopping...
We call it flip-flopping when the primary motivation for changing a personal belief is that it is politically expedient.
But President Obama “changes his mind” on the subject at hand, and he is praised for being "evolving and nuanced".
President Obama came out in strong support of gay marriage in May of 2012, smack dab in the middle of the election season, knowing full well that he would likely be alienating religious conservatives in the process, and that the people he'd be making happy with his change in position were already voting for him. That is the opposite of political expediency. In fact, I believe that, rather than waiting for the most politically advantageous time to announce his support, he instead waited only long enough to ensure that announcing his support wouldn't doom his Presidency.
He was praised because he made the right choice despite its controversial (and politically hazardous) nature. I can count the number of times I've seen that in the last decade from prominent Republicans on the fingers of a maimed hand.
I would guess that the next challenge will be based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Many states (like, unfortunately, mine) have passed laws stating they will not recognize same sex marriages performed in another state. It's very clearly an Unconstitutional law. This should give someone a pretty clear barometer of their chances of success. Finding and aggrieved plaintiff should be pretty easy too.
*wanders off to do some social media looking for a plaintiff*
We all know Democrats would never wrongly accuse Republicans of flip flopping.....
Why is it a bad thing for people to learn and change their opinions? Especially when they do so for the better?And when Republicans and Conservatives do it, we're accused of, what is the term used... Oh yeah; Flip-flopping...
But President Obama “changes his mind” on the subject at hand, and he is praised for being "evolving and nuanced".
I don't like associating Republicans with my footwear of choice.
The problem with conspiracies is the fact that three people can't keep a secret, so thousands of people trying to keep the same secret are bound to fail.
It's even more of a problem when you do it all out in the open and publish your findings. I don't think psychoanalysis was much of a secret.
I've been meaning to watch that one. I'm very skeptical of the over-arching conspiracy theory concept that spans a century, multiple countries and most likely thousands of participants. I definitely think there are people and groups who use the concepts outlined for their own ends, I just don't believe in the massive US-wide or international conspiracy.I didn't watch it from the beginning but I never got the sense that it was terribly conspiracy theoried, despite that sentence you quoted.
Anyway, even if the premise is flawed, there's so much interesting shiznit in the film it's worth it. You want German communists who believed having orgasms was the key to happiness? You got it. You want a convent of nuns renouncing their vows and becoming lesbians? You got it. You want footage of how Sigmund Freud's nephew ran the propaganda campaign to justify the CIA overthrow of the Jacobo Arbenz government i Guatemala in 1954? You got it.
Chockful of interesting shiznit.
I completely agree, I was merely voicing my one nitpick about the video and the perception people seem to come away with. It's full of really interesting information and is highly educational from everything I understand about it. I'll probably get around to finally watching it this week, while designing magic items to entice my players for the upcoming session.
And when Republicans and Conservatives do it, we're accused of, what is the term used... Oh yeah; Flip-flopping...
But President Obama “changes his mind” on the subject at hand, and he is praised for being "evolving and nuanced".
I'm curious...do you actually perceive things as being that one-sided? If so, do you also believe in the "liberal media?"
The problem with conspiracies is the fact that three people can't keep a secret, so thousands of people trying to keep the same secret are bound to fail.It's even more of a problem when you do it all out in the open and publish your findings. I don't think psychoanalysis was much of a secret.
Just make the lie so incredibly huge blatant, and filled with insane troll logic that people HAVE to believe it or question whether the world is sane.
In this case its Newt Gingrich complaining that the gays were ruining the sanctity of marriage. It HAS to be true. What other explanation is there for him divorcing his wife while she was in the hospital for cancer to marry someone else, and then cheating on her with a congressional staffer and divorcing her because she wasn't ok with it, then marrying the staffer. It must be the gays!
Hmmm. 1890. Who'd of thunk?
It's worth recalling that when Obama ran for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, he told the Chicago gay press that he was, in fact, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. He also voted against Illinois' passing of a state-wide version of DOMA.
By 2004, he was telling the Chicago press that we was opposed to gay marriage and in favor of civil unions, although he was also opposed to a Constitutional ban of gay marriage.
2012, and Obama had flip-fl--I'm sorry, changed his mind--yet again.
As Alexander Cockburn put it, in admittedly different circumstances, "Obama is one of those politicians whom journalists like to decorate with words such as 'adroit' or 'politically adept' because you can actually see him trimming to the wind, the way you see a conjuror of moderate skill shove the rabbit back up his sleeve. Above all he is concerned with the task of reassuring the masters of the Democratic Party, and beyond that, the politico-corporate establishment, that he is safe. Whatever bomb might have been in his head has long since been dis-armed. He’s never going to blow up in the face of anyone of consequence."
Yeah, and a guy who lectured on Constitutional law reversing himself, twice, and on a pretty simple issue of basic human equality to boot, that's just "changing his mind," it's got nothing to do with politics.
What is with all of this hatred of samoas, or as I know them, Caramel Delights? They are the best girl scout cookie by far, the others are rubbish by comparison. But sure, go ahead with your nitwit conspiracy theories and leave more delicious, delightful caramel delights for the rest of us.
:P
(Also, Thin Mints are the most overrated cookie ever. *Flame War ON*)
The sad truth is that anyone who doesn't have a "whatever it takes to get elected" mindset -- at least to some extent -- is never going to get elected. As a society we talk a lot about valuing integrity, then routinely punish people who display it.
Thin Mints are the most overrated cookie ever. *Flame War ON*
Ah, no. That would be Oreos. Take two perfectly good cookies and use them to sandwich a layer of sugary lard.
"Yummy."
I always thought that "flip flop" was a silly term and a poor criticism of a supposedly intelligent and educated human being. If someone can't change their opinion based on new evidence or reason how is that a good thing? Why is blindly sticking with your original opinion a good thing? I mean it's wonderful if your opinion was seen as progressive and then later accepted by the mainstream but I have a lot of respect for someone that can admit that they were wrong and then change their opinions, far more so then someone who refuses to change.
This. Very much this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thin Mints are the most overrated cookie ever. *Flame War ON*Ah, no. That would be Oreos. Take two perfectly good cookies and use them to sandwich a layer of sugary lard.
"Yummy."
Fair enough, I forgot Oreos. So thin mints are the 2nd most overrated cookie ever. Not sure I'd call the oreo cookies "perfectly good", either. They're quite bland, if I'm going to eat something so unhealthy I at least expect it to taste better than...that.
Not sure I'd call the oreo cookies "perfectly good", either. They're quite bland, if I'm going to eat something so unhealthy I at least expect it to taste better than...that.
Touche.