Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts State Police trooper, has been married for almost five years and has two children. But when she files her federal income tax return, she’s not allowed to check the “married filing jointly” box.
That’s because Ritchie and her spouse, Kathleen Bush, are a gay couple, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes them ineligible to file joint tax returns.
Now Ritchie, Bush and more than a dozen others are suing the federal government, claiming the act discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as pensions and health insurance. Plaintiffs also include Dean Hara, the widower of former U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives.
In Ritchie’s case, she and her spouse say they have paid nearly $15,000 more in taxes than they would have if they had been able to file joint returns.
“It saddens us because we love our country,” Ritchie said. “We are taxpayers. We live just like anyone else in our community. We do everything just like every other family, like every other married couple, and we are treated like less than that.”
Well, to be fair, you don’t do everything just like every other family, or every other married couple.
The lawsuit was being filed Tuesday in federal court in Boston by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the anti-discrimination group that brought a successful legal challenge leading to Massachusetts becoming the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage in 2004.
[...]
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The new lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.
[...]
All the plaintiffs are from Massachusetts and have marriages that are recognized by the state. They include a U.S. Postal Service employee who wasn’t allowed to add her spouse to her health insurance plan; a Social Security Administration retiree who was denied health insurance for his spouse; three widowers who were denied death benefits for funeral expenses; and a man who has been denied a passport bearing his married name.
In response to the lawsuit, Kris Mineau, President of the Massachusetts Family Institute released the following statement:
DOMA passed the Congress by overwhelming, bi-partisan majorities—342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate—and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
DOMA is not a conservative or liberal law, it is an American law signed to protect children and families that has been upheld by previous federal court rulings.
Americans overwhelmingly believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. Forty-five states have laws supporting traditional marriage and thirty out of thirty states have affirmed marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitutions.
Same-sex marriage activists simply cannot win a public vote so they force their will upon the citizenry through select, activist judges.
The court should reject this thinly-veiled attempt to impose same-sex marriage on American citizens who have overwhelmingly voted otherwise.
Rosie’s Place, a Boston shelter, was going to have comedian Sandra Bernhard headlining their annual benefit. But no longer. Bernhard’s recent comment the Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be gang raped in New York has led benefit organizers to can her appearance.
Bernhard’s made the remarks last month during her one-woman show in Washington before Palin visited New York to campaign. Bernhard said Palin would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” during a diatribe in which she also criticized Palin for opposing abortion rights.
Many guests at Rosie’s Place, a Boston shelter, have been victims of violence, public relations director Leemarie Mosca said.
“In light of our mission, we don’t think violence against women is a laughing matter,” she said.
Mosca said the shelter expected to book a replacement before the Oct. 16 luncheon “Funny Women … Serious Business.”
“Right now, our main focus is our event and making sure the event is a success,” Mosca said. “And for us, that means not including Sandra Bernhard at this time.”
A representative for Bernhard had no immediate comment on the cancellation.
In a statement on her Web site, Bernhard said the gang-rape comment was part of a larger piece from her show about “racism, freedom, women’s rights, and the extreme views of Gov. Sarah Palin _ a woman who doesn’t believe that other women should have the right to choose.”
“I certainly wish Gov. Palin no harm _ I’d just like her to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views … and then go back to Alaska,” she said.
It’s all relative Ms. Bernhard… there is a large population of people who find your views on abortion just as outrageous as you find people’s pro-life views. Seriously, if that’s all you have against Sarah Palin, perhaps you need some substantive material.
“They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,” Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
Republicans stressed Palin’s conservative family values in announcing her selection as John McCain’s running mate on Friday. Frank says the recent disclosure about her daughter blunts conservative claims that liberalism harms family life.
“Apparently she’s a great favorite with the conservative social movement,” Frank said. “They have said that it’s liberalism and liberals who have undermined families — same-sex marriage has been a problem, they don’t want gay people to adopt … This helps undercut those arguments.”
Not so, Congressman. Growing up with conservative values in the home does not 100% shield you from liberalism, and vice versa. You can’t walk down the street, go on the internet, or turn on the television to see how liberalism has undermined family values. Parents can only do so much to impart their values on to their children. Let’s face it, it is impossible for parents to safeguard children from values that do not align with their own, short of keeping them locked up in a dungeon somewhere with no outside contact.
Revelations about Palin’s 17-year-old daughter’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy and other family troubles reflect the stresses and strains of modern everyday life more than anything else, said Frank.
“Well, hers is a family in great turmoil,” added Frank. “She fired the state police commissioner because he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband. She has a daughter who became pregnant. That’s not her fault.”
I don’t understand why her family is “in great turmoil” for simply having to deal with the stresses and strains of modern everyday life. Many families deal with these issues, and some many times worse. But you are correct, Congressman. It’s not her fault. You can fairly go after the actions of Sarah Palin, but when it comes to her children, or any politicians children, listen to your messiah, “children are especially off limits.” Let’s keep it that way, for the children of a politicians regardless of what party they are. If Palin’s children are fair game, then all politicians’ children are fair game, and I don’t think we want to go down that road, Congressman.
In her ruling, Coakley said the question’s supporters, MassResistance, had met the necessary technical requirement for filing a ballot question. The group must now gather 33,000 signatures by the end of October to appear on the November 2010 ballot.
Coakley differentiated between her official duties and any personal feeling she may have on the issue.
“Our decision that this referendum meets the constitutional requirements as to subject matter does not mean that it has our support, but simply that the constitutional requirements are met for the proponents of the referendum to obtain further signatures,” Coakley said in a statement.
In Massachusetts, differentiating between official duties and personal feelings is a rarity. The will of the people has been brushed aside by the Legislature time and time again, and yet, somehow, these buffoons on Beacon Hill keep getting reelected.
When this question comes to a vote, and the 1913 Marriage Law is reinstated, how long do you think it will be before the legislature ignores the will of the people?
The Massachusetts Family Institute, issued a press release earlier today, accusing the Senate of redefining marriage in other states:
With its vote today to dismantle a 1913 law prohibiting out-of-state couples from marrying Massachusetts if they are ineligible for marriage in their home state, the Massachusetts Senate is inviting court challenges to the marriage laws of other states.
“The Massachusetts Senate has no right to infringe on the internal issues of how other states define marriage but that’s exactly what they voted today to do,” said Kris Mineau, president, Massachusetts Family Institute.
Dubbed falsely by same-sex marriage activists as a law with an anti-race bias, the State Supreme Judicial Court in 2006 ruled that the law was not racially motivated.
“Legislators were pressured unscrupulously by same-sex marriage activists to dismantle this law or be branded racists,” Mr. Mineau said—adding that the Human Rights Campaign hired lobbyists to work over Massachusetts legislators on this issue.
Loaner Labs and borrowed beagles will be banned in Boston if the City Council chews to pieces the latest time-saving trend: dog rentals.
A proposed prohibition on cash-and-carry canine membership clubs like FlexPetz - an international agency that purports to be sniffing out locations in Boston - will be taken up at City Hall today at 1 p.m. by the council’s Committee on Government Operations.
“To rent a dog just seems wrong. It seems very self-indulgent,” said Councilor Michael Ross, the committee’s chairman. “I’m not for legislating morality, but it just seems like cruel and unusual treatment of a poor, defenseless animal.”
It does seem a little bizarre, and I can certainly envision animal rights activists having a fit over this.
FlexPetz - currently in New York, Los Angeles and London - pairs dog lovers whose lifestyle restrictions have them on a short leash with rescued and “rehomed” pooches for “Daily Doggy Time.”
To join, FlexPetz charges a $100 monthly membership fee. Members agree to purchase a minimum four $45 rentals per month. Their in-home training costs $150, on top of a $99 annual fee.
Jennifer Wooliscroft, spokeswoman for the Animal Rescue League of Boston, said, “We are against (renting dogs). It treats a living being as a commodity.”
Pet owners in town agree.
“I don’t think it’s a good idea. It’s weird,” said Rana Juster, 26, of Cambridge, playing fetch with her cockapoo Burger.
“It’s kind of crazy,” said Terry Kelly, 40, of Boston, strolling with Tek, a golden retriever-poodle mix. “I can see some guy picking up a pup to go out and pick up girls.”
Natalie Carpenter, 30, of Watertown said her big, beautiful chocolate lab Bella needs the kind of routine only a permanent, loving home can provide.
“She’s my life,” Carpenter said. “I bring her everywhere with me.”
Trish Kapur, 30, of Boston, enjoying a day of bonding with her cairn terrier Kona Bear, said, “I’d be interested in seeing how they take care of the dogs when they’re not being rented. Just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean people are doing the right thing.”
I can certainly see their point, and my gut reaction is that the idea is wrong. However, if the animals are properly cared for while not being “rented” and the “renters” take good care of them, how is that different than the millions of parents in this country and around the world that shell out top dollar so that a stranger can raise their children, or so they dump their human commodities in day care.
Let’s face it, in this day and age, paying someone else to take care of your child is routine. If these pet rental agencies are regulated in some fashion, who’s getting hurt here? Sure, there may be guys who want to rent a dog with the hopes of picking up women, but as long as the animal is cared for, where is the harm? As one of the Boston pet owners in the article said, some dogs may require a “routine” that only a permanent home can provide. If this is true for animals, how come we think nothing of dropping off our (human) children during their most impressionable years to spend hours at a day care facility with someone who doesn’t them? Or how about shared custody situations with divorced parents and their children? That’s not really a permanent home. We know that has an effect on children, but we think nothing of it. And the big worry here is that a few dogs may get a little confused?
If these rent-a-pet companies treat their animals in a loving and caring manner between rentals, and the people who rent the animals are “screened” in some fashion, why not let these companies set up shop in Boston to see if there is a market for this kind of service, and see how it goes?
In this case, as long as the company cares for the animals and they screen their clients, I say let the market decide, not Boston City Council.
When you are in high school, you try to keep up with the latest trends and fads in order to stay “hip” and “cool.” Typically this involves clothing, or recreational drug use, and of course sex. However, some 17 girls at Gloucester High School kicked it up a notch, and thought it would be super cool to make a pregnancy pact.
There’s a stunning twist to the sudden rise in teen pregnancies at Gloucester High School. 17 students there are expecting and, according to a published report, most of them became that way on purpose.
Time Magazine is reporting that nearly half of the girls confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. None of the girls is older than 16.
Principal Joseph Sullivan has not returned calls from WBZ to confirm the report.
Is there nothing else to do in Gloucester? Seriously? Are these girls just unhappy with their lives that they feel the need to bring a child into the mix and ruin another life, or are they just plain stupid?
Sullivan told the magazine that the pact wasn’t the only shocking incident.
“We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” he told Time.
I guess one girl doesn’t like guys who live with their parents. Good luck getting child support money from a guy whose greatest achievements are not dying in the gutter and sleeping with a girl 8 years his junior. Will she sue the homeless guy for his cardboard box and his collection of empty soda cans?
The jump in pregnancies has, of course, sparked the debate about distributing contraceptives in the school.
Last month, two top officials at the high school’s health center resigned in a fight over contraceptives distribution.
Medical Director Dr. Brian Orr and chief nurse practitioner Kim Daly support confidentially giving contraceptives to students. They were outraged about resistance from Addison Gilbert Hospital, which administers the state public health grant that funds the school clinic.
Perhaps Gloucester should consider a Prop. 2 1/2 override to provide free birth control–well, maybe not. Perhaps they need to revamp their sex education program.
Normally, the school has about four pregnancies per school year.
According to Time, school officials started looking into the spike in pregnancies after an unusual number of girls came to the school clinic for pregnancy tests. Some came by several times.
“Some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant than when they were,” Sullivan told the magazine.
So there you have it…these girls are just plain stupid. Good luck raising your bastard children. Can’t wait for my tax dollars to pay for your stupid mistake.
