Everything about this is crazy wonderful. I'm so glad I'm not the only one housing broken and ruined castaway toys because she knows it would be too painful her friends and family to just throw them away.
@2230495986@twitter If I had a million hours I would make a million new logins just to like this again and again.
@Ellie I did it! It took several years of working up to it, but I learned to do a split at 36. It's not like riding a bike, though. I quit doing it when people got tired of my party trick and now my body has forgotten how.
@frumious bandersnatch One of my favorite things about that series is the friendship of the 3 kids and how it changes and gets harder as they get older. I also love that Hermione has 2 boys as her best friends but there's no whiff of her trying to be "one of the boys" to suit them. I just pretty much love everything about Hermione, really. Watching my daughter reading the series and starting to look up to Hermione has been one of the highlights of my life as a parent (she has a Hermione robe and outfit she wears when no one is looking and a time turner she wears under her clothes every day).
@lepidoptera This is so weird - I perpetually fainted in a shower growing up (knocked myself out twice, not to mention repeatedly embarrassing myself at boarding school) and suffered from episodes of general malaise that my parents always chalked up to my bookish sensitivity to the world at large. My mom drug me to every specialist in the (still small) city near our very small town (for the passing out, not what she perceived as the drama queen malingering) and all they could come up with was a very, very minor heart valve issue that the doctors had never heard of causing such issues. I grew out of it in my early 20's, but a boarding school friend who later went to med school told me she thought of me when they learned about POTS. So strange to think what my life had been like growing up if I had actually had something everyone was forced to recognize as medical instead of always being that annoying lazy girl who didn't go for physical exertion.
(Also weird, I grew up the child of healthy-eating flower children and was so averse to salt that I ate unsalted potato chips until I discovered the deliciousness that is salt in my mid-20's.)
@FlufferNutter Oh my god, this is my nightmare in life. My husband and I are really horrible about housekeeping and I used to lie awake at night envisioning what might be in our baby's throat/GI tract.
@squishycat Yeah, there's definitely an opening, but the opinion leaves a lot of room for distinguishing. Kennedy focused a lot on the fact that, by enacting DOMA, the federal government was regulating marriage, something they don't normally do and something courts have recognized time and again is almost exclusively up to states. Kennedy also repeated several times that the federal government has traditionally deferred to each state's definition of marriage, and DOMA went against that tradition. There is plenty of language in today's opinion that could be cited by states in support of their marriage bans.
Don't get me wrong - the ruling on EP grounds was way broader and awesomer than anyone I know suspected (with the added benefit of making Scalia look like a hypocritical, unprincipled ass yet again). But there is definitely a lot more work to be done.
@Amphora It seems like a gray area, but my strong suspicion is that if you moved to Alabama, the federal government does not have to recognize your marriage (but probably would do so). Federal law usually respects the state law of your residence on matters of family law. So the state laws where you reside determine the status of your adoption, divorce, child custody/support, etc., without reference to the state where those events actually took place. The sticky issue is that normally the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires each state to recognize marriages (and divorces) that took place in other states, so without Section 2 this would not be an issue. But even the DOMA decision today noted several times that states have traditionally had the power of regulating marriage and that the the federal government has to have deference to them.
@squishycat God, I hate to be that girl, and especially that girl who is also a lawyer. But I cannot keep my fingers from typing, god I annoy even myself. The DOMA only applies to the federal government. It says that the Equal Protection Clause forbids the federal government from making any laws about which kind of marriages it recognizes based on the sex/gender of the couple. It doesn't really say that the Equal Protection Clause demands marriage equality. It just says the federal government can't be dicks about what sort of state-sanctioned marriages to recognize for purposes of taxes, immigration, etc.
Section 2 is the part of DOMA that says states aren't required to recognize legal same sex marriages from other states was not at issue in the case today, so that part sadly still stands: If you're married in California and move to Alabama, Alabama does not have to recognize your marriage. And while there is a (slightly less sexy, more boring) argument that Section 2 violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, it's hard to extend today's ruling to Section 2 (in part because the federal government is traditionally reluctant to get involved in the traditionally state-run issue of regulating marriages).
Sorry. Could not help myself.
@brainchild And every so often she sat down with her husband and discussed the division of household and child-raising labor. Even though it was logical that she do more of those chores, she and her husband agreed that she should not be responsible for all of them, so they came to an agreement they could both live with and stuck with that agreement and she never had to unload the dishwasher again.