ProThaiExpat

onthemoon:

You are confused, but no wonder since you have reporters writing the news.

Pendantic I must be with this: Going back to Prop 8 in California, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State in that state, refused to appeal the adverse decision at the trial level in Federal Court because they didn't believe Prop 8 was constitutional under the US Constitution.

Judge Walker, at the trial level, had allowed the proponents of Prop 8 to intervene in the case and put on the case for the defendants, presumably representing the people of California that had voted for Prop 8.

These same "defendants" were allowed to appeal not only to the Court of Appeals in the federal system but even to the US Supreme Court. There they lost big time as the court ruled they had no standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision of unconstitionality as they were not representatives of the people of California. Under California law they did have "standing to sue" but under federal rules they must suffer a direct and personal harm to have standing.

The unanswered question is why did the Supreme Court leave the trial court, under Judge Walker, alone and not carry the principle of direct and personal harm to the trial level. If they had no standing to sue upon appeal, why would that not apply and be disqualifying at the federal trial level as well.

Anyway, to your confusion, the same thing happened in Oregon. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General of Oregon refused to appear on behalf of the people of Oregon as they believed the issue was unconstitional. When NOM tried to intervene, the trial judge ruled they had no standing to sue under the federal rules per the Prop 8 Supreme Court finding in that case.

The trial judge in Oregon even opined from the bench that he was trying a case without a defendant but he would try to take on the duties of the defense to some respect to make sure he had a fair trial.

The interesting subtext to the Oregon Decision is it was from an out gay judge.

Do you hear screams of prejudice from the right? No, in my view it is because Judge Walker, the Prop 8 judge came out after he retired. He said emphatically that he had no interest in marrying his long time lover as the Oregon judge said as well. The fine line is if they had a personal interest in their decision, ie. desire to marry their existing partner, there may well be grounds to a charge of prejudice.

After the Prop 8 case and Judge Walker came out, the right screemed prejudice. It was answered by many judges both gay and straight when they said if a gay judge can't hear a gay case, straight judges couldn't hear straight issue cases. Checkmate!!!!

The state tax issue mentioned is very important. Some states lik California are very aggresive about imposing state taxes.

I had not been back to the US for six year and not back in California for 9 years when the Franchise Tax Board filed a tax lien of $4500 on me. I only learned it this last month when a credit report was generated for me by an online service.

After a few telephone calls, I found out that in 2008 FTB decided that since I had a Real Estae Brokers License and had not filed a state income tax form for five years, I must have been earning income with the Brokers License and estimated what my income would be and filed the tax lien in court.

Talk about being flabergasted!!!! When I explained the reality to the state tax agent on the phone, she said if you fax me a copy of your annual social security income statement to support your contention that you are retired, I will have the lien expunged. I did and only time will tell if she did it.

Tax liens destroy your credit and prevent you from buying a home through mortgage etc. How is that for agressive tax collection!!!!

JT: With all the recent Federal Court decisions reportedly relying on Windsor as precedent, I went back and re-read the decision to see why they picked that case to rely on in declaring their State's Constitutions as a violative of the Fifth Ammendment provisions regarding due process and equal protection.

I was very pleased to see that the court in Windsor did not go down the path of "suspect class discrimination" which requires enanced scrutiny for gays but created a class consisting of all citizens of the states who the states had decided should be treated equally with opposite sex marriage citizens of those states. With the states granting same sex couples the same marriage rights.as opposite sex marriages, Windsor strongly came down on "states rights", the darling concept of the political right. While all the dicta in the decisions supports due process and equal protection, it never goes to the issue of "suspect class" and "enhanced scrutiny" all former court decisions regarding discrimination against gays have always struggled with.

Thus lower federal court judges no longer have to deal with a "suspect class" in their gay discrimination logic.. By merely referring to that portion of Windsor that establishes a class of citizens of a state granted same sex marriage rights and a state constitution that discriminates against that class by denying it the same marriage rights, they are home free and almost compelled to rule as they have been doing.

Hopefully the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, when they are faced with these decions on appeal, will stick with the logic of Windsor and not go to the tough question of marriage as a right under the US Constitution.

Thanks for the comments ProThaiExpat.

Bit confused as to the pricing.....I think my friend.....rather a special man.....may be getting treated as a special deal by the female doc at Ram.......however the price of the drug itself certainly went up multifold.

I am meeting my friend at Ram Thursday afternoon ( I often go along as he has bad hearing, well worse than mine! and speaks with a gravelly voice so I'm a sort of communication aide both ways.....the period waiting for the a aesthetic to work gives us chance for a chat). I shall check the doc and pricing details.

Not heard of OCT machine we normally see the retina on a screen as the doc checks it and takes photos for the record.....she does her best to explain any latest developments or hopefully non developments in the retina.

Again thanks for you interest.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Your friends condition might be such that an OCT evaluation as to the amount of bleed present and if enough to justify an injection may not be applicable in his case. I was required to visit Sripat to get the OCT exam before Dr. Pardee would give me an injection, even while seeing her at RAM. Thus made sense to move to Sripat.

However, the Doctor may feel your friends age and his ability to wait up to two hours to see the doctor might be too much for him so she keeps treating him at RAM. Also, there may be a tacit agreement between RAM and Scripat doctors that patients are not moved to Sripat unless the patient specifically insists on it, as I did. I have also moved to Sripat with my kidney doctor who has a clinic at RAM once a week in the evening but works full time at the University Hospital where Sripat is the private department of that government hospital.

I would certainly bring up your friends financial condition with Dr. Paradee at the next appointment, assuming he is seeing her and ask if it would not save him money by moving to Sripat. I have an appointment with her this evening so will inquire in general terms if she ever does an injection without at OCT before and under what conditions is that done. I, of course, would like to know for my own knowledge and if relevent, I will pass on that information here.

I would not assume he would be excluded. Once you get the police clearance docmument, submit it with a declaration under penalty of perjury explaing in detail the circumstances surrounding his arrest in the most favorable terms. My guess is you have included your pregnancy issue adequately in your other paperwork.

He should be prepared to respond in a positive way if he gets an interview as my guess he would be questioned about the arrest even if there is a declaration in the paperwork explaining it.

Only if he gets a rejection based on the criminal record would I go the special waiver route.

I have been receiving Avastin injections every ten weeks for two years now both at Ram and at Sripat. Sheryl is right as usual as Sripat is quite a bit cheaper.

I would be interested in his Doctor at Ram since I was referred to a Sripat Doctor that had a clinic at Ram twice a week. Since she is full time at Sripat I moved over to Sripat and know how much price differential there is. I was told that Dr. Paradee is the macular specialist at Ram and she is full time at Sripat.

Your friend should be getting OCT examinations prior to any determination if a shot is required. At the time I moved from RAM they did not have an OCT machine, only Sripat did. If Ram got an OCT machine, they are very expensive and my guess is he is paying alot just for that exam.

Comparing prices, I would say that the operating room fee for the injection is half the cost at Sripat, the Avastin cost two months ago at Sripat was 2200 baht, Doctor fee for injection 2000 baht, Ram it was 3500 last year. Sripat pharmacy costs are much cheaper than Ram.

Total cost for my last Avastin injection at Sripat was about 7000 baht. It has been as low as 5000 baht when I had the procedure on a different day than the office visit with the doctor and the OCT.

My operating room fee at Sripat was as low as 400 baht until my Dr. was clued in and now it runs about 1000 baht. Ram it was 1500 last year.

Years ago I had bad flu symptoms about once a month for many months that had major work ups. It was finally resolved when a urologist did a urethera look up and found a small pocket that collected bacteria and the mild infection gave me flu like symptoms of muscular aches and pains.

The fact that you have a very sore throat every time your "flu" comes on suggests you may have a recurring infecton somewhere in your nasal or throat passages that cause the flu like symptoms.

As Sheryl suggest, get a good ENT to do a full work up as there are many pasages in your head and throat that could be the breeding ground for an infection. Sinus drainage can cause sore throats as you know and the sore throat could be an mild infection that your body thows off after a few days.

Jingthing: I would submit that your thread title could be edited to just say male vs. gay male. Objectiying female beauty has long been a problem with straight men.

Maybe its a human trait that males generally objectify the object of their desire.

JT: I have great difficulty getting over my bias regarding politicians and their public vs. personal opinions. It seems to me that most politicians must have a base in the electorate to get elected. Thus my reasoning goes that maintaining that base through public statements curring their favor is essential regardless of ones own personal thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

For example, the public Dick Cheney comes to mind. While in the Bush administration, his pronouncements regarding gay marriage were clearly adverse while now, it appears to be mellowing and of course his gay daughter marrying may have somehting to do with that. My guess, he doesn't have to maintain an electorial base anymore, so as an elder stateman, he can allow his personal feelings to be more public.

Obama's early stand for opposite sex marriage "evolved" as we all well know. My guess is what he always personally thought is more in line with what his 'evolved" public stance is today.

"Telling people what they want to hear" may be a cardinal rule for a politician keeping his electoral base voting for him.

And then we have the Log Cabin Republicans!!!!!

Eggs definitely have a bad name since they are very high in cholesterol. However, the ability of the body to rid itself of chloesterol varies widely among people.

Have the cholesterol tests regularly and your decison will be a easy one.

Do yourself a favor and google USCIS, their pages are very informative, up to date and clearly invite applications for permanent residency/green card to be filed with them, giving you addresses if filing by mail or filing in BKK. Fees are discussed and all the forms and procedures, with instructions, are clear.

They even provide backup and tracking of your application.

The rumors are that your get approval in nine months if you file in BKK but over a year if you file in the US. You might try USCIS Bangkok for more targeted approach. The have an office very close to the Embassy and even take checks drawn on US banks.

Good luck. I will be filing a 130 in February by mail to the BKK office.

Ten years ago, I began to try and get a OA visa in Sydney and after a frustrating week there, the girl who was my main contact at the consulate told me that every counsul general in the Foreign Service of Thailand could set his own rules as to what processes you had to go through to get the visa.

She told me that if was almost impossible in Sydney due to the requirements of the Consul General at the time. I don't know how often they change Consul Generals but if the current one is putting up such absurd requirements, perhaps he is the same one or one who inherited and adopted the requirements from before.

I finally gave up, came to Thailand on a tourist visa and applied in BKK for a non-immigrant O and was not required to have a police report. It took some days for them to process the paperwork and at the time, Chiang Mai wasn't online to BKK so they couldn't follow up. Now you can do the whole thing in Chiang Mai as well.

Tourist visa, to non-immO and then extension.

I was in my late forties knowing nothing but paper for post toilet clean up when an interior designer advised me that if my home remodel was going to appeal to upper eschelon buyers, I needed to buy a bidet to go along with the toilet.

I went with his advice but didn't use the bidet as I usually showered after the toilet on my way to work.

One Saturday befor working in the garden, I used the bidet as showering wasn't in the cards until after my garden work.

I have used bidets, when available ever since. The Japanes sell a toilet seat bidet for thos who don't have room for a free standing bidet. I have installed those as well. I never used the heater, fan dryer or front spray that comes with those bidet seats.

Thailand was the first country I have visited where santitary sprays were almost universally available and sure are an easy way to accomplish a water assisted clean up.

I was raised in Japan, years ago, and never saw a sanitary spray, although small buckets with water were available in their toilets.

My daughters house in Australia has no such water sprays or bidets so there I use a dedicated wash cloth with warm water and soap from the adjacent sink. The dedicated wash cloth hangs on the toilet brush when not in use and it has never wandered by the hands of others.

Wash up with water after toilet vs. paper only, to me, is like a smart cell phone, you don't know how you got along without one once you got it.

Perhaps I suffer from over exposure to nature shows on televisions but it seems to me that nature has something to do with this issue.

The female of the species is the human in a heterosexual coupling who, by nature, are driven to select males who would have the perceived best genes for procreation. Thus the truth behind the assertion that women are more carefull, usually, in choosing a mate.

Further the female psyche seems to be much more emotionally involved in the sex act by nature as well for underlying procreation reasons as well. Of course, generalities are dangerous by their very nature as well.

In nature the male of most species is ready to mate at almost a moments notice while the female only becomes agreeable to sex when she is fertile. Sometimes referred to as the "Guardian of the gate" or words to that effect.

Herterosexual men necessarily must woo a woman or romance her or seduce her in most cases while men on men sex is much less complicated and can occur with limited foreplay for the foregoing reasons.

My obvious point is that humans are driven by nature when it comes to sex, however societal attitudes do temper that activity.

Scott: So right, its called the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. Each state is supposed to give"full faith and credit" to each other's laws.

However, in practice it often is not enforced as the laws of the rogue state will control until it is taken to a US Federal Court where it should be ruled unconstitutional, not by State Constitution, but by the US Constitution.

JT: Your question regarding "what happens to civil untions when a state adopts same sex marriage" was answered in California, I believe, when a state court ruled that the civil union, being by its own language "has the same rights as a marriage" that for all intents and purposes is a marriage and the court will treat the civil union as a marriage. Merger may be the concept.

Each country and each state on this earth have laws that differ. In the US equal rights is a major issue and as long as any group is treated differently by the majority, there is a basic civil rights issue.

Years ago, many felt the correct and easiest way to treat this issue was to merely change the terminology in all the existing laws from marriage to civil unions, thus whether same sex or opposite sex, one would go to the government office to obtain a license to have a union and once armed with that license, one would go to ones church and have a ceremony, who may use the word marriage or go to a civil entitity like a judge or clerk and have them certify the union permitting that couple to use the word marriage if they chose.

This approach treats all couples equally and keeps government secular. Not possible with the power of the religious orders to give up their claim of devine guidance and control over marriages. Many married couples, religious or otherwise, just don't want to share what they have in their marriages and the legal recognition of that right. Many gays wouldn't marry or unionize no matter what, fear of commitment prevades straights and gays.

Comparing European cultures with that of the US serves no objective purpose as there are almost as many countries in Europe that have changed their laws to permit same sex marriage as their are US states that have done so likewise. In fact it is my perception that European countries preceeded the US in granting same sex couples the right to marry long before a state in the US did?

Traveling in Europe and running into many of the same people at tourist sites. When asked "Is he your Nephew?"

My answer, if I liked them "Yes". If I didn't like them: "No, we are lovers and we have been together since he was eleven!!"

I am in almost an identical legal position as you and your Thai partner, however, I have two more years with my partner than you.

As an "oldie" with a younger partner, my main concern is his care after I reach my expiration date. While I have assets that might be able to generate sufficient income for him to live on in Thailand in the future, if he were to qualify for my pension, my financial assets would be freed up to leave to my grand children.

A five year residency in the US is required for an alien spouse to qualify for SSA survivor benefits. That residency requirement would not apply if the surviving spouse is a US Citizen.

A Thai spouse married to an American can become a US citizen after a residency of three years.

My partner and I are therefore planning to marry in the US in January 2014 and after approximately 9 months to a year, upon his recipt of a green card, move to the US to accomplish the residency for citizenship and then return to Thailand to reside until my demise.

Caveat: My partner is a life long American admirer and couldn't be happier with the promise of a US marriage and honeymoon in 2014 and a three year stint in the US a year thereafter to become a citizen.

While he is integrated into my family and loved by all, he still would feel more comfortable with a government pension once he reaches 65 rather than depend on my executor to come through with a pension funded by my financial assets.

I would not apply the foregoing to anyone else in similar circumstances as every one is different and in different relationships unless that couple has a traditional marriage orientation and similar financial issues.

Your first sentence is False but I am a little tired to go through the rest right now ...... A citizen wife is not entitled to payments without a waiting period, it depends on the situation. A person who marries someone expected to die within 9 months is not eligible under most situations for what I guess are for obvious reasons of people doing it just for the payments. (which is unrelated to the non citizen issue.)

Being tired may explain your missing the point. I am talking about residency requirements for an Alien Spouse, Normally five year residency to be eligible for survivor benefits.however, if after a three year residency and the alien spouse becomes a citizen, there is no further residence requirement. As the below quite indicates, the time to process the naturalization application adds his spouse only waited a few months to get her citizenship. Others may have to wait almost a year so add thatto the residency requirement in this scenario, so in effect you probably only save a year or a bit more off the five rear residency requirement if you spouse becomes a citizen as soon as possible after receiving the green card and US residency immediately after that.

"

by UdonExpat » June 19, 2007, 11:05 am

Someone recently told me my wife would need to have resided in the US for at least 5 years to get survivor benefits when she is 60, and I have passed on (we have no children). This is true if she is not a US Citizen, but since she is there is no residency requirement.

Under current naturalization requirements a spouse can become a citizen after only 3 years as a Resident Alien (green card) in the US. My wife became a US Citizen after 3 years and 2 1/2 months in the states.

Admittedly it was a sacrifice to return to the US for a bit over 3 years, but it will provide for her in her old age, and as a dual citizen it is now much easier for us to travel outside of Thailand as she now has a US passport"

My reading of the SSA regs led me to believe that an Alian Spouse resident in the US for three years is eligible to become a citizen, and clearly a citizen wife is entitled to survivors benefits without a waiting period. Thus the five year residence requirement is shortened to three years and makes getting citizenship well worth the effort if one wants to return to Thailand as soon as possible.

I trust those who have an interest in this permutation of the regs will post if they disagree with my belief so I can check it out again if I was misled.

I have also explored what residence in the US means and I have seen some information to indicate that as long as one goes overseas for no more than six months at a time, residency for eligibility for SSA survivor benefits is considered continuous.

I have no knowledge of whether a Thai marriage is valid for SSA purposes, there must be some who read this that have some personal experience in this regard. I would think if in doubt, re-marry in the US while there. I suspect that if one is grandted a green card for your spouse to travel to the US to live and the marriage certificate qualifying for the green card was from Thailand, this is a non-issue.

This is the same form that I get every year for the past 12 years and I am not disabled, just receiving SSA benefits.

My take on the form, which threatens to cut off benefits if not returned, is their way of confirming you are still alive and that the benefits are going to a living person.

I don't believe getting married affects your benefits, but does notify SSA that you have a wife and when you die, they may receive a claim for survivors benefits.

If you do not send the form in, you will get another one to insure it didn't go astray and then I think they will cut off benefits if that one isn't received by them.

Any idea how drapes/curtains compare to venetian blinds wrt practicality, durability, cost ,and ease in keeping them clean of the dust that seems to coat everything in the CMai valley. Cheers.

Personal taste contrils here, however, I have both narrow blinds in my entry way and roman fabrick shades thoughout the rest of the house and the shades win out with me. Perhaps the fact that I have a large Western exposure and am caused to lower and raise the shades every day keeps them from appearing dusty. They have been hanging for ten years and are still quite usable although a mark or two do appear. Maybe I will get them cleaned one of these days.They are light gold in color with white minor hash marks or dots.

Blinds gather dust like a magnet and are really not a viable option if you leave your windows open in CM to get airflow, in my view.

Years ago I tried to get a non-imm-OA from the Sydney Thai Consulate and after road block after road block, the Thai lady who was running things in those days said that each Thai consulate is different, with differeing policies and that I should give up and try in my home country. She was most explicit and forthcoming and advised that the Consul General of each Thai Consulate is given broad authority to issue or not issue visas in accordance with his own interpretation of the guidelines and regulations regarding those matters issued by the Department of Foreign Affiairs in Bangkok.