ProThaiExpat

LeC: I thank you for the quote from Olson regarding the second class status of civil partnerships in the US as it makes those insisting on same sex marriage's position better understood. '.... the evidence will demonstrate that relegating gay men and lesbians to “domestic partnerships” is to inflict upon them badges of inferiority that forever stigmatize their loving relationships as different, separate, unequal, and less worthy—something akin to a commercial venture, not a loving union."

In trying to reach an accomodation with the majority of the RR who generally are backed by faith based institutions a few years ago, I advanced the notion that a political, rather than a legal solution, to the conflict between pro and anti same sex marriage would be to remove the word marriage from the thousands of laws using that word and replacing it with civil partnerships or unions.

Then, the government would be treating everyone equally when it came to recognizing the institution of what has been called marriage historically. Under such an approach, all persons desiring to bond, would go to the government to get a civil partnership or union license and then proceed to a church or judge or whomever the government decreed could solemnize a civil partnership union and have a ceremony which could be called a marriage by that church. I am not sure straights would welcome this approach as the discussion would then be "were you married in a church or unionized by a judge. Likewise, under this approach, straights would get to share the "feeling" now felt by gays, when the word marriage is denied them in referring to their union.

Since designated civil authorities are granted the power to "marry" people outside of a church's jurisdiction, are they not really just performing a "union" ceremony anyway. Even today, such a union by a secular government official is called a marriage ceremony.

Clearly, England is the mother country of the US and many of our common law legal issues came from England originally, so the systems are very similar. However, peerages are present today in England and abhorred in the US, who broke away from mother England due in part to the inequality in English society at that time and so it is not surprising that a gay citizen of the UK could abide by having his "union" relationship called something different, separate and apart, from the term granted to men and women, while most gay people from the US can't abide by such discrimination, even if it is discrimination by word and not deed.

The US courts do permit discrimination if there is a rational basis for such government action. Age based discrimination in operating motor vehicles is one example. However, as the Prop 8 trial and appellate court decision have resoundingly emphasized, there is no rational basis for requiring a same sex couple to be treated differently than men and women when it comes to their unions. by segregating them to a separate law, rule and regulation than straights.

LeC in your post on equality your logic applies to the physical differences in humans, etc. but "equality" referred to in this thread is in a legal and constitutional context involving civil rights. The constitution of the US and most states therein require the government to treat all persons in their jurisdictions equally under the law. That is a civil right granted by the US Constitution and any time a government or people through a referendum infringes on that civil right, the courts negate the law or act.

There was a time when women were not given an opportunity to participate in sport teams in schools and that practice was discarded by court actions as women have as much right to play in organized sports as do men. There are many cases where women were physically good enough to play on men's teams and the courts ordered their inclusion on the previously all men's teams.

Many states have rushed to amend their constitutions hoping to block gay marriage. The legislature of California passed equality marriage laws for gays two years running and the then governor Schwarznegger vetoed it, as did Gov. Christie did just this last month in New Jersey. The California Supreme Court then heard a case and ruled that gays had the constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. Prop 8, a referendum passed in which a bare majority of the voting public returned the law to the previous opposite sex restriction to marriage after many thousands were legally married in California.

The current case which was the subject of the play Jingthing was so kind to link to his post, was an appeal of that referendum amending the California Constitution. When a state constitution violates the mandates of the US Constitution, the federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the State constitution involved. This is what is going on at the appeal level since the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the amendment to the California Constitution was a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and declared that amendment to the California unconstitutional. Unfortunately the federal courts held the effectiveness of their decisions in abeyance until the appeal process is completed.

The laws regarding interracial marriage has come up for discussion and they are very relevant to understanding the constitutional principles involved in gay marriage.

In 1947, the California Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that it was unconstitutional under the California Constitution to deny interracial marriage. It took 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and declared all laws in the U.S. that denied the right to marry interracialy to be unconstitutional. At that time a vast majority of the states in the US barred interracial marriage and a little over 80% of the public felt likewise. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Earl Warren. The same Chief Justice responsible for Brown v. Education declaring that in civil rights matters, separate cannot be equal.

Yes, there was an attempt when President Bush had Republican control of both houses of the U.S. Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to restrict marriage to a man and woman. The effort was defeated, ironically, as one of the tenets of the right wing in the U.S. is "states rights", the notion that the States should do almost everything government should do and the Federal Government has no business sticking its nose in what states do. Fortunately for civil rights, the U.S. Constitution is supreme and when it is interpreted in a progressive way, regressive laws and state actions fall.

Personally, I think Republican and Democrat are misnomers, it should be the Progressive Party and the Regressive Party.

Excellent points and questions. In the US, precedence is very strong when arguing to a court. In Brown vs. Board of Education, the US Supremes ruled that by definition, separate cannot be equal in ordering the integration of schools.

Strategy wise, the "retarded right", once seeing what happened in Massachusetts, rushed off to the electorate and changed every state constitution it could to make marriage only between and man and a woman. Why, because legally there is simply no sense to their arguments against same sex marriage and they attempted to pre-empt what they feared the courts would do. That fear is being realized in almost every court case brought in jurisdictions with reasonable judges.

Many forget the US is a Republic, ie. ruled by law, and not a democracy, which is ruled by the people. The founding fathers were careful to not put too much power in the electorate and thus you have the Electoral College and the courts to balance the power of the electorate. The "people" through referendums and their chosen representatives in Congress, are so concerned at being re-elected that they adhere to wedge issues required for re-election rather than doing the right thing.

The California case, the subject of OP, has reached the appellate level and the "retarded right" (hereinafter "RR") lost again. See my previous post.

Since IJWT admitted in his post that he was playing devil's advocate, he raised the issue of the political solution to the issue, rather than the legal one. Well, polling among Americans under 40 overwhelmingly favor equal sex marriage. The "oldies" who have most of the money are in control of the Republican Party and their poll figures still show disfavor to "change" and of course RR is in there stirring the pot with money and advertising in which "protect the children" is the fear factor without basis in fact.

As the "oldies", like me, die off, the inevitably of same sex marriage is a no brainer. However, I would like to be able to marry my partner of ten years before this oldie goes the way of all humans. So, understandably, those not interested in marrying someone of the same sex do not feel the urgency of the issue.

Thanks to jingthing, I watched the play on my computer and enjoyed it because it put the defendants arguments up to scrutiny and of course they failed completely. There were many points emphasized or chosen for the abbreviated version of the trial and there were many. Suffice to say the main theme was that once ignorance and fear are put on trial in the light of day, they fail miserably. One point was that of the dozens of "experts" identified by the defendants to be witnesses, once their depositions were taken and they were subject to questioning on the facts upon which they relied for their opinions, they all but one refused to testify at the trial. The one that did, ended up looking ridiculous upon cross-examination.

They are supposed to be following the trial transcript, but there must be some literary license. However, I think they will find enough drama in the transcript to not need additional drama.

The Prop 8 case was affirmed on appeal in a very narrowly drawn decision applying it only to California and not ruling on whether same sex marriage is a constitutional right. The court of appeals found it unconstitutional to remove a civil right from a minority group once it had been granted. The Federal Court trial judge made his decision much broader regarding the rights of same sex couples to marry.

Once the entire court sitting en banc makes its decision and hopefully sticks to the narrow ruling of the three judge panel, the Supreme Court of the U.S. can easily refuse to hear the case on appeal as the case only affects California and usually they wait until there are conflicting decisions from more than one state before taking the case.

Many have said that the majority opinion writer on the three judge panel wrote the opinion specifically for the Supreme Court Judge Kennedy, often called the "swing vote judge", who wrote the majority opinion in two prior gay right's cases on the same basis that it is unconstitutional to remove a civil right from a minority group once given.

There are a number of Federal trial judge cases percolating up the appeals route which are much broader drawn by their trial judges and there is a DOMA case as well on the way up, these other cases give the Supreme Court much more wiggle room if they want it as they are more basic in the civil rights area declaring that the constitutional law issue of equal protection of the law is at the heart of those cases.

Kennedy and Kaufman, the appeals judge, if I recall correctly, served together on the same bench prior to assuming their current positions.

You can start by reading the many posts on the subject of young Thais and the difficulties they have getting into the US and Australia.

Then go to the Department of State website and read about the obligations of the applicant in obtaining a visa to the US.

The critical issue is the burden of proof is on the applicant to change the mind of the interviewer that he will overstay his visa to work at higher wages than he can get in Thailand or live with his b/f who is a U.S. resident. The Department of State website spells out the law that the interviewer is required to begin the interview with a negative mindset that must be overcome by the applicant.

In obtaining visas for both the US and OZ, I left nothing to chance and prepared a lengthy brochure covering all the basis I could think of, including calling the index to exhibits "Compelling reasons to return to Thailand"

There is nothing more persuasive than a love interest in Thailand for your b/f to return to so if that is the case with you, provide as much information and documentation as you can muster to establish your long stay in Thailand.

Do your reading of my previous posts and those of other informative posters and then PM me when you have questions that have answers not previously posted.

Go to work, it is quite an ordeal but possible if you line up all the ducks required.

Since the 90 Day report is a report of current residence, can't see how we will be less burdened by a swipe of a bar code. The bar code may save time of Immigration Officers as to the forms they have to fill out , particularly the form regarding your next reporting and their need to change the date on the stamp for every report.

Those of us who have resided at the same residence for 10 years or more wonder why we just can't report when we change residences, which is the law anyway.

My mental health is always better when I don't try to figure out what others are thinking upon seeing me. One thought that may well be prevalent among many Thais, when seeing an old falang fart with a younger companion is "good for them" as the Thai is doing well and working hard to earn benefits for them and their family.

Next to the US, Australia is one of the toughest countries for single thai citizens to get a visa as they are high wage countries compared to Thailand for those working in the "service" industries and my guess is there is a higher percentage of overstays in this group of applicants.

You lady friend falls clearly in this category and a monumental effort will be required to get a visa for her, especially as you are in Australia and the love connection is the second most damaging category for overstays.

The compelling reason to return mantra is controlling and if that wasn't hit hard on the first application, it was doomed from the start.

Only after having established a long and sustained relationship will you have any chance, in my view and that is only after you a strengthened to the maximum her compelling reasons to return to Thailand after a short first visit.

While the minimum visa is for three months, a two or three week holiday buttressed with a very tight itinerary will help persuading that she is truly going to Australia for a familiarity visit.

If you had posted before making your first attempt many of the replies would have been "no chance" opinions and now with one strike against you, a major effort will be required and only after more time together has occurred.

Can't guarantee that they have exactly what you want, but there is a shop on superhighway adjacent to the northboud service lane across from SuperC Extra that carries a number of wood mouldings. I bet they could make some for you if they don't have what you want in stock or surely could order for you.

I went to Homepro to augment what I have used for my trim and they were out and their supply was minimum compared to years ago. They referred me to this shop which is across superhighway from them and a little bit farther north. They had what I wanted plus racks of other sizes and styles. It is a professional Thai wood supply and building supply store and easy to find as long as your northbound on the service road on the west side of superhighway less than a kilometer north of Big C extra.

Last month I ordered a camera online from B&H Camera in New York and had it shipped via UPS Worldwide. Five day delivery with tracking. Duty 3% and 7% VAT, separately detailed and invoiced.

My preferred carrier is USPS or Australia Post as most items come through without either duty or VAT.

This time I opted for UPS Worldwide for its tracking and security as the cost of the camera was not something I wanted to lose.

I forgot to mention that I was under the impression that this camera was not readily available in Thailand since it was new to the distribution chain and they didn't get enough made before the floods to cover all their usual countries. I certainly couldn't find any in Chiang Mai when I looked.

You will immediately notice if you go on line that they are not readily available in Oz and most of the online retailers offering them on Oz sites are actually Hong Kong based. I also noticed that the prices went as high as 550 dollars at some of those retailers, however, I am not sure if they were using HK dollars but I thought they were quoting AUD at the time. Also, the shipping is 50 AUD, higher than from the US. Norman, Dick Smith and other Oz online retailers didn't show them as available.

The UPS Wordwide tracking was fascinating as it only took five days to get to my door from New York and that included a whole day in China with equipment failure. It was routed through Alaska, then to Hong Kong, then mainland China, then Singapore and Bangkok and then to my door in Chiang Mai. Tracking revealed it was logged in on a Monday morning in BKK from Singapore at 3:00am and at my door in CM by noon.

I just bought one last month from B&H camera in New York and had it shipped here via UPS Worldwide. Total cost, including camera, 8 gig card, shipping, duty and vat was 15,000.

I am impressed with the wide angle capacity of the lens, the speed of the shutter and incredible 35X zoom. A great camera for everyday use and with skill can approach higher priced camera quality. Night photography outstanding.

For someone who doesn't want to change lenses, this is a great camera.

In the years I have monitored this issue in the U.S, we have seen a marked change in attitudes by many, particularly among the young. Thus I don't give up hope. It matters not if Obama "evolves" to our position before or after the next election, hopefully he will win in either case. As a "lame duck" president he will not have the political restraints he has now, particularly if he can carry the house of representatives.

Jingthing, don't give up hope, look what happened to the meaning of the word "gay" over the past fifty years!!!

What worries me is the Supreme Court. Both Scalia and Thomas will require explicit language in the constitution before they will find gays are entitled to be treated as their straight neighbors and we know that our forefathers believed in a 'living" constitution to be interpreted in a contemporary way.

Hopefully, a swing vote member will vote the right way when the equal rights of gays are under consideration.

DOMA is the big hurdle and it will only go down when the House of Representatives is purged of some of the intolerant and obdurate Republicans. The courts may be our savior as it was in the inter-racial marriage issue in 1947 by the California Supreme Court followed by the US Supreme Court 17 years later. Judge Walker in San Francisco did such a great job of trying the issues and making a great legal record before he came down with his decision regarding the unconstitutional Prop 8 as violate of equal protection that the Supremes may not have much wiggle room to hold otherwise.

I swore to myself that I would not post again in Thaivisa as so many attack the individual for his comments rather than attack the ideas espoused.

I think Jingthing once swore off posting as well, for a time.

I was very heavily into the subject matter of same sex "marriage" a couple of years ago and while I am heavily in favor of legal solutions and legalistic logic, I learned there is a "political" approach that can carry the day, even when the law cannot.

Clearly, all that have posted are in favor of gays being able to couple legally and equally as do straights now.

The hang up comes when the word 'marriage' gets involved. For a long time, my solution to what appears to be the main thrust of this thread was to allow religions to have the right to use the word "marriage" to indicate their ceremonies coupling individuals and to apply their own dogma to whom they choose to join.

When the "state" becomes involved in coupling, as they do now in what they call "marriage" and use that term in more than a thousand legal ways in most states, clearly that word would have to be changed under this approach. For now, the term civil union seems to fit. Under this approach, all coupling by any person to another as licensed by the state would be called civil unions and then religionists would be free to go to the church of their choice, after being civilly joined, and have a marriage ceremony. There are enough welcoming religions that should satisfy religious minded gays to get "married" as well. Both religious joinders and civil officials joinder ceremonies would continue as now.

I can see that this approach might lead to some irrelevant bigotry when a gay couple satisfied with a civil ceremony by a government official would be attacked socially because they were not really "married", however, straight couples would likewise be stigmatized, however over time, my guess is that the word marriage would transmute to include all joinders, once "permitted" by a civil union license,and would be referred to as a marriage, whether followed by a religious ceremony or a civil one.

I think this would be termed a "political solution", the legalistic approach would be to not allow religions to pre-empt the word marriage and have a court to order the word marriage as presently on the books to mean a joinder of any two people regardless of sex, religion etc.

On the day Obama was sworn in as President of the U.S. and there was the usual parade with many camera shots of him and the reviewing stand, Fox News broadcast live continuous coverage of George Bush's departure from the White House, his helicopter flight to Andrews Air Base, his flight to Texas, his landing there and his travels to his ranch and the balance of his day there, no coverage of the Inaugural of the new president or the festivities surrounding his big day, at least live. Fortunately, for those who think the inaugural and the festivities surrounding a new President's first day is news, NBC and ABC were broadcasting continuous coverage.

Fox News is reported to have a large share of viewers as clearly they target the conservative viewers of TV in the US and get most of them to watch it would appear.

You will observe when you start looking at moo bans that most of them were constructed some distance from major roads as the land was so much cheaper than frontage on major roads. Many moo bans have elaborate gates, an abundance of "security guards" and are quite inviting, however, you may travel a kilometer or more from the main road and the gates before reaching the housing units and depending on the size of the developments, many kilometers more of roads to reach your ideal home.

I mention this as a 7/11 located at the entrance to the moo ban may be just too far of a walk from many of the houses in the development, so watch the distance from that amenity to any house you consider. There are rentals in most moo bans and most of them will have a unit in the 10K to 15K range available most of the time.

My interrupted service has been intermittent all week, but checking back after an hour or so solved the problem for that effort.

For very busy working people I can see it is more than an annoyance, but so many things are in modern life, in whatever country you live in.

Ten years with SCB and interruptions are rare when looked at on a long term basis.

Bangkok Bank has given me such poor service and so many fees for interbank transfers that I actually take my pension deposit from BKKBANK and walk it over to SCB to avoid their transfer delay and fees.

It is good to keep in mind as you attempt to "negotiate" a better deal than first offered, that Japan is the country of fixed prices and Thailand seems to be so inclined. GM tried to do it in the US a few years back and I have no clue if they succeeded. While unwanted "premiums" are often given, the price of the product rarely is discounted.

Accordingly, as suggested by other posters, perhaps you can get some "freebies", however, your timing is definitely against you as the supply chain of Toyotas has been severely disrupted and I wouldn't be surprised if premium prices will be the norm for some time.

I opened an account at Westpac Bank in Australia a few years ago while living in Thailand when the AUD was 65 cents to the USD. I moved all my US holdings to Australia, many Skype calls to them, and have enjoyed the increase in my reserves with the AUD at record levels. My interest rate on 5 year CDs is 6.7% per annum and I encountered no problem with any authorities in doing this.

You do pay a flat 10% tax on your interest income, taken out by the bank at the time they pay you. I opted for a monthly payment of interest earned, although could have picked up a couple more decimal points in interest if I had opted for annual payments of interest.

If I were to do it again, I would open a dollar denominated account at Westpac there so that I could pick the exchange rate most favorable to me in the time frame chosen to convert my USD to AUD.

Interest rates have been climbing in the last couple of years and logging onto Westpac's website will give you current interest rates, above 5% I believe. I do my banking with ANZ who pays interest on both savings and checking accounts. Westpac charges AUD 20 on wire transfers while ANZ charges AUD 24.

Online transfers between the two banks occurs on a daily basis and both banks have excellent web sites.

PM me with any questions.

Good Luck.

When I retired to Thailand ten years ago, BKK Immigration was quite demanding that I show them the actual bank voucher indicating thereon the country of origin and institution of my transferred funds and the date/time stamp of when it was received.

It was my understanding that this was only for the first time I went for non-immO based on retirment from tourist visa. When I then extended in Chiang Mai for the first year, there was no such request. I have done the same tourist to non-immO a couple of times since and there was no such requirement, however on those occasions I was using a pension letter.

At the time, the Immigration Officer explained to me that they wanted to make sure the money I was using for my 800K bank deposit came from overseas and was not earned in Thailand.

I don't know if that requirement is still in place and whether it varies from officer to officer. Perhaps there are members who have done a first time application recently who can help with this. If I were you, the amount of difference between what you can get as a rate of exchange by actual cash in BKK and the best conversion rate at a major bank through a wire transfer is not so much that it is worth the risk of not being able to prove the source of your funds, if immigration asks you as this is your first time, as it was for me.

My house, built on a triangular lot and generally conforming to that shape, has a classic Thai tile roof over the majority of the house, but as the house is triangular, a flat roof is used to cover the areas that the peaked tile can't accomodate.

Ten years and no leaks. They used a white cement type paint to seal the cement roof. My drains are numerous and the down spout blue pipes are concealed in faux columns which conforms to the overall design.

I would be concerned with putting drains inside the house and running horizontally across ceilings. The pictures of the house do not reveal external wall design but surely the downspouts could be buried in the exterior walls.

There are many flat roof sealing methods and companies that use them. One who my builder brought out to the house, has a great textured fabric seal but it was really expensive. Palm Springs, California has an abundance of flat roofs and they use a white cement based coating for most of those flat roofs.

I have used ModernForm office chairs around my round dining table for 10 years and they are as good as the day I bought them. I like a swivel chair with wheels. They also repair any that are damaged due to heavy use. They are fabric covered but they must use a iron weave as no wear shows. Needless to say they are pricey but you do get what you pay for in this line.

Their store is located in Chiang Mai on the Super Highway across from Northern Tesco.

I bought my Lenovo during the change over from IBM since it was cheaper to buy a new low end Lenovo than the crashed old IBM motherboard destroyed by coffee spill.

Must be five years or more and it is going well. I did upgrade my Ram of 500mb by google search for my laptop version and found a 1.5 gig for 65 dollars AUD. Also upgraded by HD to 500 gigs. Had it installed in Thailand and all data moved into it for 500 baht. Yes speed is now remarkable.

I did download a free Ram Utilization Program (RAM PROx)that installed a meter on my task bar alerting me to what my going RAM usage was and when it gets below 500 I access my task manager and remove RAM gobbling programs that inevitably end up on my machine inadvertently. For example, even though you have told Skype to not turn on when you turn on your computer and your icon shows white, it still runs part of their program using 50 mg unless you log off. Control Alt Delete brings up your task manager and lets you see exactly what programs are eating all your RAM.

Having played the copy game ad naseum with the various officers at CM Immigration, I now simply go to the copy girl behind immigration, tell her what process I am going through and she makes the right copies for very few baht with no extra ones returned to me by any of the officers.

What did you ever have to copy for your 90 day report?

Earlier this month, copies required were face page of passport and non-immO visa. I didn't go personally this time, but the Thai that did it for me, reported that was what was needed.

Having played the copy game ad naseum with the various officers at CM Immigration, I now simply go to the copy girl behind immigration, tell her what process I am going through and she makes the right copies for very few baht with no extra ones returned to me by any of the officers.