LIBERTY: Gooferment should get out of the “marriage” business

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional
July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

*** begin quote ***

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

*** and ***

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We’re reviewing the decision.”

*** end quote ***

Interesting how the Obama administration is “studying” this one. Studying how it can let it stand. Since it aligns with their identity politics. Isn’t Kagan the Solicitor General? Doesn’t she have to appeal that. Talk about a conflict!

As a little L libertarian, it’s always been my assertion that the Gooferment has no business in the definition of “marriage”. Churches do marriage; not Gooferment. Remember the purposes of “marriage licenses” was, in the South, to keep black men from marrying white women.

The tax code confers benefits to “marriages” that are inexcusable. The Gooferment already has “corporations”. That it favors with tax breaks and stuff. Perhaps it can just extend “corporate status” to individuals. Like a subschapter S.

Or me could just remove the tax favored status of marriage and simplify the tax code.

See, bottom line, it’s really the right of the people to be left alone and to make their choices without the Gooferment trying to influence those choices by picking winners and losers. Or, the things it “likes” better than other things. Gooferment fails at everything; so why is this any different.

It’s always about force. In this case, forcing people to do what the people in chage of the levers of Gooferment want them to do.

A recipe for disaster.

# # # # #

MONEY: Pensions are a promise that will be reneged on

Is Your Pension Threatened?
For Immediate Release
July 09, 2010

*** begin quote ***

WASHINGTON D.C., July 8, 2010 — Controversy hit The Ric Edelman Show this week, when award-winning talk show host Ric Edelman ignited a debate on the future of public pensions in America.

A caller to Edelman’s nationally syndicated radio program sparked the debate. Mary Ellen, a 51-year-old, has little money in savings. But because she works for a city government, she can retire immediately thanks to a pension that will pay her $46,000 for life annually plus provide full health care benefits for the rest of her life. While she wondered if she could afford to retire, many of the show’s listeners wondered how our society could pay for her and millions of other public employees like her.

*** end quote ***


I’m more concerned about the trial balloon that urges the Gooferment to “save” old people from poor returns in the Stock Market by seizing all IRA / 401Ks from the custodians in exchange for an as yet undetermined “enhanced Social Security benefit”!

Wish Ric would opine on that.

We can all be in the same boat as the poor people in Zimbabwe!

# # # # #

PINKY: If I Could Relive Any Day of My Life … Shoulda, coulda, and woulda!

I've learned the hard way that idle speculation on what might have been is counter productive and a waste of time.

Probably the day I decided which College to attend.

I had been accepted to: Stamford, Notre Dame, Fordham, and Manhattan. I chose Manhattan because it was easiest and cheapest. It's hard to imagine one day in my life that was so pivotal. That decision determined so much of my future. It was the choice that cut off three other branches.

In my novel, I'd have the ability to see "… the Eternal Possibilities Machine, which generates all the possibilities for use in creating the alternative worlds. In all those probability lines …" CHURCH 10●19●62 (Vol 1) 978-0-557-08387-9 page 45.

That would tell me how things would have been different. Unfortunately, unlike the Bill Murray movie "GROUNDHOGS DAY", you don't get the benefit of do overs.

So, I'll never know what could have happened.

Shoulda, coulda, and woulda! They'll kill you.

POLITICAL: It’s the “effete”; not the “elite”

July 05, 2010
Reclaiming language on the right
Harry Beadle

*** begin quote ***

At any rate, I would argue there are many other words which better describe the true nature of our liberal friends. One I would propose is “effete.” The same online American Heritage Dictionary defines the word this way: “marked by self-indulgence, triviality or decadence; as in an effete group of self-professed intellectuals.” I am sure you see the relevance. Another definition from the same online source is: “unable to produce, sterile.” Liberals surely do not produce original ideas; as for sterility, we can but hope.

*** end quote ***

I agree.

From hence forth and forever more, I will refer to the Progressive ex-Liberal self-annointed Socialist “elite” as “The Effete”.

It fits them so much better.

# # # # #