TGIF 6/24/22

If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, it will surely fit in a period-tracking app.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, it will surely fit in an employer's benefit package. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, it will surely fit in a smart-phone location-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, it will surely fit in a toll-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, it will surely fit public surveillance data.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, it will surely fit in your electronic medical records.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, and in your electronic medical records, it will surely fit in other places, the likes of which we haven't yet even thought.

But it won't fit in a gun cabinet.

TGIF, everyone.

Marriage Equality from the IRS is not real 'Tax Equality'

Yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service announced that they would recognize legal same-sex marriages for tax purposes, granting them the same benefits as legally married opposite-sex couples.  Even if they move to a state that doesn't have a marriage equality law. Even if they were married in a foreign country.  By golly, how progressive!

Here's a comment from Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on the decision:

Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal law that all Americans deserve. This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.

This announcement was entirely logical, based on the SCOTUS decision back in June that deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

The expected parties chimed in from both the 'pro' and 'con' side. For example:

The Treasury Department is grossly overstepping its authority. This is a nation of laws. Only Congress has the authority to change the law...This action continues a pattern of lawlessness across the nation where administrators and clerks have taken it upon themselves to interpret and re-write laws as they pertain to marriage. Only the legislative branches of the Federal or State governments enact or rewrite the law... This,  from Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. I'm guessing that those 'administrators and clerks' include Supreme Court Justices, who down DOMA?

This welcome clarification provides fair and consistent treatment for all legally married couples across the country. The federal government is right to recognized that people's marriages shouldn't dissolve when they cross state lines.  So said James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT Project.

This one seemed like a no-brainer for the IRS. The alternative, of course, would be to treat opposite-sex marriages the same as same-sex marriages, which I'm sure no one wants to mess with.  For example:

• Try telling an opposite-sex couple just back from their destination wedding and honeymoon on a Caribbean island that they're not really married, because they had their wedding in another country.
• Try explaining to all of those loving opposite-sex couples that got married in Las Vegas at the Elvis Wedding Chapel that their marriage is meaningless here in New York, because it happened in another state.
• Or my favorite, try telling married opposite-sex couples that they can no longer have any of the myriad benefits that go along with being married. There's more than just the tax implications, such as the one that was the reason for the Windsor/DOMA case in the first place.

If  the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, as some have suggested, then all benefits given to legally married couples should be removed.  However, if the government is going to be in the marriage business, then all legally married couples - same or opposite sex - are entitled to the same federal benefits.  That's really simple. 

What's complicated is way beyond the issue of marriage equality, and that's the thinking that somehow, every 'interest group' is entitled to some special benefit under the varied laws of the federal government and of each state.  Individuals and businesses, doctors and lawyers, farmers and bankers,  rich people and poor, military contractors and tourist traps and everyone and everything in between, have a chance at any number of reductions, credits, and benefits simply because they are, well either a person, place or thing. It's nuts.

What if, heaven forbid, we actually treated everyone equally, in just the tax code?  What if we made everyone pay their fair share, and not some manufactured share based on who they loved, their race, their location, their occupation, or how they spent their salary?

An outrage of biblical proportions, I'm sure.  The screaming that's been happening since June 26th over same sex marriage will pale in comparison to what would happen if we truly moved towards a limited government that acted with equality.

Anyone want to stick around for that?

Knock Knock. Who's there? An Iowa Republican

An Iowa Republican who?

An Iowa Republican who wants to pay judges on his state's highest court based on the decisions they make.

Judges on Iowa's Supreme Court make around $163K for their full-time jobs; state representatives like Tom Shaw (R-Laurens) make $25K for their part-time jobs (are you listening, New York?).  Shaw, upset with the unanimous decision of the justices back in 2009 on the constitutionality of gay marriage in Iowa, is one of a handful of folks proposing that the four judges still on the bench who were involved in that decision have their pay reduced to $25K, in part because

It's our job to maintain the balance of power between the three co-equal branches of  government.

Maybe it's just me, but the Legislature declaring war on the Judicial branch (and only part of it, mind you) by slashing salaries of people they don't like doesn't seem to have much at all to do with 'maintaining' the balance of power, it seems pretty much like a bald-faced power grab, doesn't it? 

The fact that the Iowa state motto is "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain" must be lost on Representative Shaw. So is this little section of the Iowa Constitution:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation: the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

In the tripartite system, the Legislature is supposed to draft bills, laws and codes that are constitutional.  The Executive branch is supposed to pass or veto them. The Judicial branch is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the law and codes.  Sometimes, there's a breakdown, usually starting with the Leg, when they miss the mark.  And when that happens, people go to court to get the final answer.

In their written decision, the justices went to great lengths to describe how they reached the conclusion that the Iowa code declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman was unconstitutional.  

Legislators have a few options when the Court decides against them: they can try and amend the law to meet constitutional requirements; they can drop the issue entirely; or they can try and amend the constitution, in which case "the people" decide (and by people, I mean corporations, unions, PACs, and so on, as well as humans who vote).

Rarely do they propose punitive damages against the judges.

This isn't about marriage equality.

Yes, the case was about marriage equality, but this issue is much larger than that --  it's a very bizarre and frightening concept generally.   Kind of makes you wonder where they could go next, doesn't it?

Knock knock.