Just a little observation . . .

Have you noticed how frequently mouthbreathers and dropouts feel the need to instruct others?

The Supreme Court prepares to screw up gay marriage . . .

Everybody has a right to get married.  Nobody has the right to marry whoever or whatever they choose.  You can't marry somebody who doesn't want to marry you back.  You can't marry somebody who is only six years old. You can't marry somebody who is already married to somebody else.  You can't marry more than one at a time.  You can't marry your pet St. Bernard bitch, no matter how comely she may be.  You can't marry a unicorn.

The gummint gives specific legal rights to people who marry according to the gummint's specific marital prescriptions, like rights to consent, rights to pass on property, tax distinctions, etc.  Rights are legal conditions created by government.  Not all rights belong to everybody. If so-called rights to marry are extended beyond the boundaries of the specific marital prescriptions, they cease to be rights.  They become property.

 

The problem isn't that gay people are denied rights available to married, straight people. The problem is that special privilege has been granted to married people. Why should marriage, a public confession to strictly private behavior, be given any special privilege at all?

 Want more rights for gay people?  Consider that at the state level, citizens vote on issues of rights all the time, while also voting for representative candidates.  There are even referendum privileges where citizens can propose changes to laws granting or reducing rights.  But at the federal level, citizens only vote for representative or executive candidates, never issues.  We are stuck with the fact that Congress and the Executive can and will act only as they damn well please. 

 

But at the state level, we get to vote.  That's a hint that the right to marry is a state issue, not a federal issue.  Some states permit gay marriages; some don't

 The issue of marriage only seems to be of federal concern when it arises between the states, as when state A permits a couple to marry, where they would not have been permitted to marry in state B.  We've always relied on the theory of full faith and credit to resolve these matters, and that's why somebody came up with the cockamamie Defense of Marriage Act.  At the federal level!  Thereby putting the federal government and some state governments at odds, and creating a 10th amendment quandary to be ignored by the buttheads of the right who didn't like getting outvoted.

I don't see marriage as one of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution and it sure as hell isn't covered under the interstate commerce dodge, where butthead progressive types seem to find justification for most of their pet notions. 

 So it seems to me that the DOMA is the problem and could be dumped for unconstitutionality. 

 

What to do if you are gay, in a committed, loving relationship, and your state of residence is not one of the states permitting gay marriage?  Move to a more congenial state, and marry, butthead.  (I suggest that anybody contemplating marriage, straight, gay, or just bent a little funny, should take a look at divorce law while looking at marriage law.) 

Thus Walt hath spoken, fully anticipating the Supreme Court to pay no attention whatsoever to the words of Walt.

Science question . . .

Tardigrades.  Okay, so I now know you can't drown them, freeze them, roast them, starve them, or dry them out, and they can survive in the cold vacuum of space.  They will survive.

Can you squash the little buggers?

Portland has an arts tax . . .

Portland, Oregon, has a permanent tax on everybody, for the arts.  Every resident of Portland over age 18, who has income, must pay $35.00.  Shut up and send the money in.

The revenue raised by the tax is going to be spent, half, to get more arts teachers in the schools.  the other half will be spent for "the arts".  I think that means for cronies, cuddle buddies and fellow travelers.

This tax was the result of a vote.  Voters approved it.  Wonder if the voters would be just as jazzed by the idea of a math tax, to hire more math teachers in the public schools, and the other half -- for math?  Hey, where are people most limited, in their ability to appreciate artistic expressions, or in their ability to understand and use basic number relationships?  What holds more people back in their prospects for a comfortable life, the inability to understand percentages or the inability to distinguish between crimson and scarlet?

How about this.  I'll pay the tax and they won't have any problem with me.  I like art and I can afford it.

But there is a whole 'nother issue.  If this law is later held to be a  head tax and therefore unconstitutional, as legally it ought to be, I'll expect my refund to be paid promptly without giving me any problems.  But deep down, I expect that that's 35 dollars I'll never see again. 

Because it truly isn't about the constitution or the arts; it's all about who gets to spend my money and what they choose to spend it on

Just sayin' . . .

Have you seen the car commercial showing the doofus in the white shirt and necktie trying to teach his kid how to play catch?  Doofus has to keep chasing the ball 'cause kid can't get the ball to him -- because the kid is throwing as awkwardly as his father.  Dude throws like an African-Indonesian with a Hawaiian birth certificate.